Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This
seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous. Seven years later, it seems
grotesque.
As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued
Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya,
Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East.
He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and
special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.
If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from
Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services?
'
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West
and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before
Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions.
And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For
example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an
unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was
behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?
The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a
dubious intelligence assessment.
In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions
against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President
Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by
the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.
The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle
of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect.
Nothing quite adds up.
If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized
campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling
a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices
in both parties are saying this now.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham
noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee,
meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is "
insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."
The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.
Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since
the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting
about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia
hacked the election."
This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked
the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it
hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states
(a far more outlandish tale backed by
no credible evidence ).
As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month
shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.
And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some
real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a
baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 have attempted to argue that
Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia
or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely
on unnamed security sources.
Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large
segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating
from the Obama administration.
Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max.
But the press right now is flying blind.
Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone
else? There is even a
published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's
any more believable than anything else here.
We just don't know, which is the problem.
We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they
won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find
to get a point across.
The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses
that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some
of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that
the hackers constantly faked their location.
McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location,
their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to
hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said
"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use
Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization,"
McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."
Question of Patriotism
It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling,
and wars.
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain
and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old
story, over and over again.
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between
their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really
believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation
of the current time?
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at
least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees
interesting vs political bias they exhibit.
Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone
upsetting that plan.
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away
motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of
insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.
Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the
former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water
may be directed to the Palestinians!
Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move
every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero!
So, while Palestinians
struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die
of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are
used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!
Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed
to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?
Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97%
this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region
and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the
effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the
north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels
of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.
And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our
cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program
CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as
Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the
malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored
outfit, especially a Russian effort.
Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no
traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda
at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election
for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that
Trump is unfit and illegitimate.
I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None
of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.
Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians,
both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was
clear the wars were pointless.
Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling
what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media
was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was
the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have
claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know
the true origins of the attacks.
Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate.
Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely
restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even
worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into
Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out
by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."
WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking
groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main
anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security
and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined
themes.
The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc,
via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not
dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know
about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks
came from elsewhere.
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.
McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have
been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump
meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will
bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect
that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext
for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.
The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when
JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the
real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.
After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected
Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that
the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also
brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is
indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.
Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial
interests to nurture the misma.
Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when
JFK took an independent view "
All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over
50 years.
After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that
anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack,
believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they
have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too
stupid.
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this
move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.
Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader
of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots,
it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I
think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your
naοvetι here surprises me!
Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people
in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually
than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'.
It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would
be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.
The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years
for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely
thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.
Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent
but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators
of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.
Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats
facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking
tools that are widely available for purchase.
He said:
1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* can't attribute based off that alone.
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal,
unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content***
of the emails? It wouldn't.
Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his
corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however
Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's
bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?
And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment
staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?
I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when
they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone
who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote
"... White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's
manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there
is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks). ..."
"... The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised,
so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political
system, which is insane. ..."
"... You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus
some that are beyond imagination." ~Charles de Gaulle. ..."
"... United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list... ..."
"... Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I
suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama,
just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. ..."
On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence
operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug. Putin, it seems,
is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is
too.
But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern
for Trump the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to
his disadvantage .
"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into
or [to] box in the next administration's relationship with Russia," said Boris Zilberman, a
Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
"Putin, in part, saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [Russian foreign
minister Sergey] Lavrov and the [state] Duma, who were calling for a reciprocal response."
vgnych 8h ago
All Obama does with his clumsy movements is just attempting to blame Russians for Democrat's
loss of elections. Also he is obscuring peaceful power transition while at it.
All what Trump needs to do is to just call the looser a loser a move on.
White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's
manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that
there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks).
The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were
compromised, so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to
have corrupt political system, which is insane.
This argumentation means that even if Russian government has done the hacking, it was a
good deed, there is nothing to sanction Russia for even in such case.
'Fraid both Putin and Trump are a lot smarter than Barry. Putin's move in not retaliating and
inviting US kids to the Kremlin New Year party was an astute judo throw. And Barry is sitting
on his backside wondering how it happened.
Reply
.. Probably Obama's "exceptionalism" made him so clumsy on international affairs stage..
.. just recently.. snubbed by Fidel.. he refused to meet him..
.. humiliated by Raul Castro, he declined to hug president of USA..
.. Duterte described.. hmm.. his provenance..
.. Bibi told him off in most vulgar way.. several times..
.. and now this..
..pathetic..
P.S. You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus
some that are beyond imagination." ~Charles de Gaulle.
Obama knew about Russian involvement in July. Look it up. He ignored it because it was seen
as having no effect, and they didn't want the appearance of the government favoring Hillary,
because they thought she was in line for a landslide victory.
After the election, "RUSSIA" has become a fund raising buzz word for Democrats.
The election should have taught our "betters" that people do think for themselves, albeit occasionally.
I've been frustrated enough with Obama since he pardoned Bush and Cheney... now he wants
to sacrifice whatever shreds of reputation the Democratic party has... to be a white knight
for miserable candidate, warmonger, and incompetent Hillary Clinton.
He figured the republicans would love him when he took Bush et al. off the hook and (clumsily)
implemented Romney's health plan. They didn't.
Now he thinks leftists will love him because he's going "all in" on Hillary didn't lose
this all on her own. They won't.
The guy doesn't have a fraction of the insight he credits himself with.
Simple solution, publish the commenter geolocation and ban proxy, clean the comment section
from putinbots. Putin like ASBO's must stop to do more harm against democracy.
Reply Share
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem
is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits
of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism
Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat,
but the core of their policies was Corpratism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.
The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what
they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated
but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That
is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's
"Liberalism" any more.
You just know these people, like Johnny boy, who are pointing fingers at Russia are doing so
based upon long laid plans to bind up Trump from building a healthy relationship with Russia
which would put an end to terrorism and likely all of these petty little wars that are tearing
the world to pieces. These people want war because division keeps them in power and war makes
them lots of money. I hope that Trump and Putin can work together and build a trust and foundation
as allies in that together we can stamp out terrorism and stabilize the worlds conflicts. Everything
these people do in the next 20 days has a single agenda and that is to cause instability and
roadblocks for Trump and his team. Hope is just around the corner people so let's help usher
it in.
First... let's see some actual evidence/proof. Oh, that's right, none has been offered up.
Second... everyone is upset that the DNC turd was exposed, but no one upset about the existence
of the turd. ?
Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking
the game board and forcing everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible.
Hundred times repeated lie will become the truth... that's the US officials policy for decades
now. In 8 years, they did nothing, so they are trying to do "something" in the last minute.
For someone, who's using his own brain is all of this just laughable.
United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list...
Hopefully now this will enable senate and congress republicans to prevent these crazy ideas
of russian appeasement take hold and prusue a hardline against Russia, Hamas, Iran and Cuba.
They'll probably do that. Business as usual. To pursue a hard line against Isis enablers like
Saudi and Qatar, now that would be a surprise.
Reply Share
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly
I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried
under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area.
You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.
The foreign power did the American people a favor when it exposed the corruption within the
Democratic Party; something the establishment media was apparently unable or unwilling to do.
Rather than sanctioning Putin, Americans should be thanking him!
Seems a no brainer, reverse Obama's ridiculous posturing gesture. As if the US doesn't have
a long track record of interfering in the affairs of other countries.
Personally I think the US should do as it wishes but it's extremely hypocritical to act shocked
when the same meddling is returned by others. Obama is acting foolishly as if the final weeks
of his presidency have any genuine traction on future events.
Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to
take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the
political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus,
with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process,
which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Notable quotes:
"... In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'. ..."
"... Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly. ..."
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personallyyou know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from
taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup'
is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.
The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to
the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to
the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.
The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional
and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives,
mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.
The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that
the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential
political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and
legitimacy.
The Coup as 'Process'
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in
Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife'
for these 'regime changes'.
Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted
through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies
in Congress and the Judiciary.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part
of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American
coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking
office in January.
While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within
a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.
Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to
take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the
political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus,
with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process,
which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure accusing President-Elect Trump
of
being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his
Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party
prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.
The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green
Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass
media.
In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green
Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George
Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money
financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media
and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the
American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media.
The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts
and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American
Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.
Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia,
the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like
Jill Stein.
The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question
Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention:
The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties,
and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they
all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative
warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and
social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation
of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival
'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia
and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry'
Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.
ORDER IT NOW
The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called
on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election
essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused
to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.
President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy
and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and
place of our choosing".
Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the
jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian
Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo
and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.
Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance
Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress.
He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three
retired generals to key Defense and Security positions indicating a power struggle between the
highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been
key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them
with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.
Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported
the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his
cabinet who had their own allied business associations.
One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL,
George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This
was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as
Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced
with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect
named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security
and intelligence positions.
The Coup: Can it succeed?
In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation'
on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks right up to the
very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already
oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort
will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well
and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with
Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque
policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election
and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with
his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among
the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires
his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic
agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed
to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger
of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.
If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack
support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies,
but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').
He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among
the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to
the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire',
not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.
A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power.
But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the
whole system?
If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists
eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a
failure.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the
top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids?
Replies:
@Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced:
"This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled
threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of
those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the
end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and
tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1
challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying
to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive
Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). ,
@animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show
the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred
of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless
stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's
& their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the
drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces
in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and
it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being
questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?
Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic
than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country
Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises
by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and
the Trump campaign was a failure.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits
on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It
also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media
and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the
American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the
term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since
before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans
are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly
in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating"
"report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American
people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause
Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear
him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them
over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject
to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the
books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with
this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to
assent by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark
Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose
to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply
where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein
were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine
the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking
civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's
re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from
the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit
less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was
the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about
Russia.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?]
of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial
passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's
Air Force planes operating in Syria stillthat were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria
which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the
UN.
Given this I think we are all in very great danger todaynow AND I think we have to press hard
to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That
could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is
real and substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]a felony under existing laws.
Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things
in the far fuzzy futureor NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
FOR TRUMP
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of
"man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial
passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's
Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria
which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the
UN.
Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard
to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could
be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and
substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws.
--Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things
in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!
It needs to be published as a feature story.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
Replies:
@El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all
the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some
balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trumpnot Obamathat's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trumpout of fear and necessityrun with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?Or
will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say.
Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and
qualifications, though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything
here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for
nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just
more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead foreever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all
the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena.
Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political
foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both
sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to
confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set
about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive
amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that
Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not
until. At least that is my hope, however naοve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate
a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the
world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own
game. , @map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.
How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors. ,
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more
empty symbolism." Meanwhile... The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights'
at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS
directly.
The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although
Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now
be tied by all the traitors that run the US.
You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped
the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying
slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.
(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing
the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.
You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country
or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality:
are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?
This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter
is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want
to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest
policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo
loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's
choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
Replies:
@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the
so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real
"deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not
do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been
in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly
educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to
file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are
not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either
the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of,
the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s)
conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering
activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the
racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups
The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic.
In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for
a coup.
If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will
just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be
from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white
interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up
to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.
Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.
Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)
It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media.
While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law
which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press
For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth"
in George Orwell's book 1984.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top.
Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the
Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced:
"This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled
threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of
those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the
end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and
tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1
challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying
to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive
Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top.
Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the
Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president. An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show
the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred
of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless
stupidity -- If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's
& their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the
drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits
on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It
also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8
million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and
NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American
voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term;
this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before
Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed
up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly
in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating"
"report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American
people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause
Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear
him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them
over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject
to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books,
but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is
that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent
by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark
Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose
to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply
where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein
were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine
the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking
civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's
re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from
the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit
less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it
was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about
Russia.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications,
though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything
here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for
nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just
more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all
the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena.
Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") Caligula
@Karl
the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before
Dr Stein's recount circuses.
They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.
Nothing else they try will fly.
Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer"
to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s)
are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either
the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of,
the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s)
conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering
activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the
racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
@Max Havelaar
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to
revenge Aleppo loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's
choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites"
in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the
US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does
not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is
the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell who has never been in combat and
never demonstrated any intellectual vigor is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated
opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have
brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not
follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest
candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling
of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do? ,
@Max Havelaar
A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.
I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as
to when the Coup D'etat is going to or has already taken place .
The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John
F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2
million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert
Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.
Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.
Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There
are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass
Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for
the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.
I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below,
for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute
new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy
destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically
elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments
have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the
Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy,
left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.
In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class,
by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence
wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long
decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well
as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without
a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the
nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has
been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings
cannot stay even with the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures,
and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700
military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the
nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military
and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the
Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous
administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens
of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act
and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions
of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population;
the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is
bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds,
Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government,
with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for
imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts
owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts,
will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.
As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their
own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of
the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead
and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government
which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression,
freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which
will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means
a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people.
We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians
of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic! Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
@annamaria
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the
so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real
"deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not
do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been
in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly
educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have
brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not
follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest
candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling
of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do?
Replies:
@Bill Jones
The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.
My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and
pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two
palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious
explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?
The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation
certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess
who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?
As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.
Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:
My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year
contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered
that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years
I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.
At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.
If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably
split the same way.
The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined
these agencies in the first place to serve their country not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects,
and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.
Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political
foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both
sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress
to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can
set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require
massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced
that Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action.
Not until. At least that is my hope, however naοve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate
a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the
world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own
game.
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel
has disarmed the Jew community they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite the most power two words
in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and
Russia hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before
Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war
with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.
Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax)
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to
undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds
of hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt"
you seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with
Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement
of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff ..like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would
initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before
Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
@Tomster
What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have
sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous
brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@Art
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to
Israel has disarmed the Jew community they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite the most power
two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia
hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Peace --- Art
"If we get past the inauguration ."
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) doing his best to screw things up
before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at
war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII. Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax)
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama he had to do something looks like he did the minimum.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on
Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It
is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if
Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis
to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
Replies:
@joe webb
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer
moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb ,
@RobinG
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash."
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts
and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation
martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate
who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and
round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
@map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the
Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably
did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but
Joe Webb
Replies:
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
@Realist
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented
any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation
martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate
who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and
round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers.
Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO
LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the
zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last
month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their
supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently
working on." Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the
VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic
scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies the hordes of fanatical
jihadis.
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before
Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war
with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII. Francis Boyle writes: "... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
Hi RobinG,
This is much ado about nothing in a NYT's article today they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart not the DNC it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really how pissed off can they be?
Peace - Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama he had to do something looks like he did the minimum.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine,
his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin,
and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced
the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek
inside the Democrat machine.
Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This
shall not stand!
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama he had to do something looks like he did the minimum.
Hi Art,
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in
Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in
Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This
document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may
be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see
https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .
@annamaria
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and
war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO
LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ...
the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted
last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut
their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently
working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the
VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic
scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical
jihadis.
@joe webb
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer
moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their
land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not
change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a
comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on
board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose
a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
Replies:
@Tomster
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them.
,
@joe webb
good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim
Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course
The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews
pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian
with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs.
Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything
for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there
were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have
ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on,
even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion.
The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut
feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars
in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even
over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody
in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have
not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own
logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like
the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty
will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like
Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control
and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as
Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual
and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their
jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other
race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This
document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may
be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the
Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:
Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker
https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ ,
@alexander
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow
today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the
American people over the last sixteen years...
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an
outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss
or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign,
came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were
fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times,
who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that
he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to
shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the
reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge
his bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although
he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close
to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the
electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and
when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had
him shot in the back.....four times...
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty
malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute"
Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire
Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.
But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?
"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist
policies. "
The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has
for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."
A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist.
A black mark on both countries' report cards.
@map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by?
The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash."
Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians,
while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more
empty symbolism." Meanwhile The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine,
his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin,
and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG - Agree 100% some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at
the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of
hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you
seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with
Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement
of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff.....like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would
initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before
Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes
to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains
are?). Who knows? but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs who have done virtually nothing for them.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined
with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people
over the last sixteen years
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an
outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss
or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign,
came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were
fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times,
who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that
he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut
Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the
reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his
bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although
he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close
to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the
electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and
when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had
him shot in the back ..four times
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty
malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute"
Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire
Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course
The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews
pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian
with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of
affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns
anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere
that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under
discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have
ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on,
even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion.
The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut
feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars
in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even
over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody
in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have
not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own
logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like
the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way
humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like
Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control
and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just
as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual
and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for
their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any
other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain. Joe Webb
Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking
heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian
hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.
January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.
Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically
important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.
I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions
to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.
One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama
administration's record on cyber security has been terrible. Off the top of my
head I can think of several compromising cases:
* Anything having to do with HRC's bathroom server, of course
* The Sony hack that Obama said was North Korea, but other experts say was
probably just Trump's 400 lb fat guy on a bed.
* The alleged Chinese hacking of OPM
* And undoubtedly the "CYBER 911!!" of the alleged Russian interference in the
election.
I don't see anyone talking about the fact that cyber infrastructure looks
like it's been hit by birdshot. All the while, Obama's intelligence teams are
mining information on Americans as extralegally as possible.
"Russia tampered with vote tallies to help Donald Trump"
Yeah, that seems like a clear statement, but when you consider that the vast majority of people
do not habitually read closely and interpret things literally, I can see how this would easily
be misinterpreted.
Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact.
It's not the same as "tampered with vote tallies" but an inattentive poll respondent might assume
the question was about the former. And most people are inattentive.
"Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact."
You are funny. Especially with your "well established fact" nonsense.
In such cases the only source of well established facts is a court of law or International
observers of the elections. All other agencies have their own interest in distorting the truth.
For example, to get additional funding.
And that list includes President Obama himself, as a player, because he clearly was a Hillary
supporter and as such can not be considered an impartial player and can politically benefit from
shifting the blame for fiasco to Russia.
Also historically, he never was very truthful with American people, was he? As in case of his
"Change we can believe in!" bait and switch trick.
There were several other important foreign players in the US elections: for example KAS and
Israel. Were their actions investigated? Especially in the area of financial support of candidates.
And then FYI there is a documented history of US tampering in Russian Presidential election
of 2011-2012 such as meetings of the US ambassador with the opposition leaders, financing of opposition
via NGO, putting pressure by publishing election pools produced by US financed non-profits, and
so on and so forth. All in the name of democracy, of course. Which cost Ambassador McFaul his
position; NED was kicked out of the country.
As far as I remember nobody went to jail in the USA for those activities. There was no investigation.
So it looks like the USA authorities considered this to be a pretty legal activity. Then why they
complain now?
And then there is the whole rich history of CIA subverting elections in Latin America.
So is not this a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"?
I don't know. But I would avoid your simplistic position. The case is too complex for this.
At least more complex that the narrative the neoliberal MSMs try to present us with. It might
be Russian influence was a factor, but it might be that it was negligible and other factors were
in play. There is also a pre-history and there are other suspects.
You probably need to see a wider context of the event.
Some perspective: For most of human history, power was rooted in
possession
of land. After the
Industrial Revolution , power lay in controlling in the means of production. But today, the main
source of power is control of information.
Having the power to control information (what Steve Sailer calls
The Megaphone ) gives you the ability to determine what issues will be discussed, what
viewpoints are considered legitimate, and who is allowed to participate in polite society. It
ultimately allows you to push an entire code of morality on others. And morality is, ultimately,
a weapon more terrible than can be found in any arsenal [
Weaponized Morality , by Gregory Hood, Radix, October 12, 2016].
The 2016 election was ultimately a battle between the
commanding heights of media (newspapers, networks, and web portals) and what we could call the
guerillas of media (/pol, forums, hackers,
right wing trolls , and independent media outlets like us). The latter lacked power on their
own, but they united behind Donald Trump, a man whose brand was so well-established that the Establishment
couldn't ignore him. It was
Fourth Generation Warfare this time over information.
And just as guerillas have been frustrating established armies all around the world on real-world
battlefields, so did the online commandos frustrate and eventually overcome the seemingly invincible
Fourth Estate.
But this victory wasn't inevitable. From day one,
the MSM tried to destroy Donald Trump , including his business empire, because of his stated
views on immigration.
Since that failed, they have started turning on his supporters with three tactics.
First , a blatant attempt to pathologize dissentespecially the Alt Right.
Soon after the election, the Leftist Think Progress blog announced that the Alt Right should
only be called "white nationalist" or "white supremacist". [
Think Progress will no longer describe racists as "alt-right" , November 22, 2016]
The AP dutifully echoed this pronouncement days later, warning journalists not to use the term and
instead to stick to pejoratives. [
AP issues guidelines for using the term 'alt-right,' by Brent Griffiths, Politico,
November 28, 2016]
This is a literally
Orwellian attempt to eliminate Crimethink through
linguistic control
. Of course, no such guidelines will apply to non-white Identitarian groups such as the National
Council of La Raza, which will continue to be called an "advocacy" or "progressive grass-roots immigration-reform
organization" [
NCLR head: Obama 'deporter-in-chief, ' by Reid Epstein, Politico, March 4,
2016].
Secondly , a meme has been invented about so-called
"Fake News," which will be used to shut down
dissident media outlets.
Needless to say, most the rationale for this is not just fake, but comically, obviously, wrong.
Thus the Washington Post
reported that VDARE.com (and many other sites) was a "Russian propaganda effort" based on no
evidence at all. We ask: where is our vodka?
Rolling Stone, which
pushed one of the most disgusting hoaxes in
modern journalism at the University
of Virginia, is having
meetings with President
Obama to discuss "fake news." The Guardian
fell for what appears to be a hoax decrying "online hate" precisely because it is impossible
to tell the difference today between the latest virtue signaling craze and satire.
Actual attacks on Trump supporters are not covered, while unsourced, unverified claims of a wave
of "hate crimes," which mostly consists of handwritten notes most likely written by the supposed
"victims" or
incidents so trivial normal people wouldn't even notice , dominate the headlines.
This is a far more insidious form of "fake news" than anything "the Russians" are promoting. And
what about the lie of "
hands up, don't shoot ?"
Another example: supposedly mainstream outlets are comfortable leveling wild charges Steve Bannon
is somehow a "white nationalist." Bannon on the evidence is actually a
civic nationalist who has specifically denounced racism and, if anything, is showing troubling
signs of moving towards the
"DemsRRealRacist"- style talking points which led Conservatism Inc. to disaster. There are absolutely
no statements by Bannon actually calling for, say, a white ethnostate.
Thirdly , the Trump victory is clearly leading to increased attempts at outright
repression.
Or, as VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow
told the NPI conference: "What we are going to see in the next few years is an intensified Reign
Of Terror."
For example, Buzzfeed's latest masterpiece of journalism: the shocking revelation that
reality stars Chip and Joanna Gaines attend a church that disagrees with homosexual marriage [
Chip and Joanna Gaines' Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage , by Kate Aurthur,
Buzzfeed, November 29, 2016]. You knowlike every Christian church for about 2000 years. The
obvious agenda: to get the show canceled or the Gaines to disavow their own pastor.
This is the goal of most "journalism" todayto get someone fired or to get someone to disavow
someone. The
Southern Poverty Law Center (
$PLC to VDARE.com) makes a
lucrative income from
policing speech . ( Right, a graph of their endowment fund.)And journalists today are no different
than the $PLC. They do not report, they do not provide information, and rather than ensuring freedom
they are the willing tools of repression.
And this repression only goes one way.
If you wouldn't invite
some communist demonstrator into your meeting, why would you invite an MSM journalist? They have
the same beliefs, the same motivations, and increasingly, they rely on the same tactics. Aside from
the occasional throwing of feces (as Richard Spencer learned at NPI), the preferred tactic of "Antifa"
consists of pearl-clutching blog posts.
Since the election, journalists have been paying tribute to their own courage, promising to hold
Trump accountable. But there is no greater enemy to free speech than reporters. Shutting down the
networks and shuttering the newspapers would be a boon to independence of thought, not an obstacle.
For his own sake, to defend his own Administration, Trump has to delegitimize the MSM, just as
he did during the campaign. He should continue to use his Twitter account and speak straight to the
people. He should not
hold press conferences with national MSM and speak only to local reporters before holding rallies.
If Twitter bans him, as Leftists are urging, he should nationalize it as a utility and make it a
free speech zone.[
Twitter has become a utility , by Alan Kohler, The Australian, October 17,
2016]
And Trump's supporters need to act the same way. Stop giving reporters access. Stop pretending
you can play the MSM for your own benefit. Stop acting like these people are anything other than
hostile political activists whose only interest in life is to make yours worse.
Stop giving them what they want.
Your career, family, and entire life may depend on it. And so does the life of the nation.
James Kirkpatrick [
Email him]
is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.
"... "The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism. ..."
"... They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is. ..."
"... THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute. ..."
"... The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence. ..."
"... If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe. ..."
This post by Leftie on facebook offers glimpse into chasm on the other side.
It's Progs vs Globs. ProGlob is coming apart.
"The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters
are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA
and FBI and McCarthyism.
They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious
assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but
oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the
*alleged*
hacking by Russia that amounts
to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is.
The "fake news" (it's called free speech you fucking assholes) that the Rooskies pumped into our
helpless and confused brains is a threat to the Republic but "capitalism means freedom and democracy",
WMD's, yellow cake, mobile weapons labs, babies torn from incubators, the international monolithic communist
conspiracy, Gaddafi supplying viagra to his troops, the headchoppers Obama gives arms and sends into
Syria to destroy yet another nation are "moderates", KONY 2012, the filthy Hun is coming to kill us
all in 1917, "Duck and cover!!" Gulf of Tonkin, Ho Chi Min's soldiers are going to spring from their
canoes on the beaches of Malibu to rape your wife and make you wear pajamas, "superpredators" and on
and on etc etc etc
THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children.
If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party
click their heels and salute.
The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their
team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the
fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence.
If it's true the "Russians" (who be
that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't
even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US
over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe.
And
the whole obscene carnival engulfing the nation is of course to be blamed on the racist knuckle-dragging
"basket of deplorables.""
A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington
D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder
Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off
with one of the email sources in September.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com
on Tuesday. ' The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks,
not hacks.'
His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published
before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.
Americans steeped in a culture of 'politics' are again being fooled, this election wasn't about
party or state lines, "Republicans" didn't win over "Democrats" - this election was about a wild
card, a non-politician, non-Establishment candidate winning by a landslide if going by the polls
(Trump was given 5% chance of winning up until the night of election).
When Peρa Nieto won, Sepϊlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives,
hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with
a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia
and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history
of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.
For eight years, Sepϊlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political
campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peρa Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a
team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves
of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peρa Nieto,
a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle
of Colσn Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.
Sepϊlveda's career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small-mostly defacing campaign websites
and breaking into opponents' donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that
spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America. He wasn't
cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could
hack smartphones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package,
at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and
defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepϊlveda
says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met
only a few.
His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia,
Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted
through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico's PRI and the campaign of Guatemala's
National Advancement Party would comment.
The point here, well there are several points. One, Sepulveda is not the only guy in the world
doing this. The CIA even has a team of social media trolls and the NSA has a department that only
develops robots to do the same thing Sepulveda was doing and better. The age of 'spies' has transformed
into an electronic, digital, online version - much like the internet has transformed life and business
it has also changed the way the intelligence establishment deals with controlling the population.
Oh how the FBI has evolved since the days of Hoffman and Cointelpro!
Many of Sepϊlveda's efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able
to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the
21st century. "My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda,
rumors-the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see," he says
in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily
fortified offices of Colombia's attorney general's office. He's serving 10 years in prison for
charges including use of malicious software, conspiracy to commit crime, violation of personal
data, and espionage, related to hacking during Colombia's 2014 presidential election. He has agreed
to tell his full story for the first time, hoping to convince the public that he's rehabilitated-and
gather support for a reduced sentence.
Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan Josι Rendσn, a Miami-based political consultant
who's been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendσn denies using Sepϊlveda for anything illegal,
and categorically disputes the account Sepϊlveda gave Bloomberg Businessweek of their relationship,
but admits knowing him and using him to do website design. "If I talked to him maybe once or twice,
it was in a group session about that, about the Web," he says. "I don't do illegal stuff at all.
There is negative campaigning. They don't like it-OK. But if it's legal, I'm gonna do it. I'm
not a saint, but I'm not a criminal." While Sepϊlveda's policy was to destroy all data at the
completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted
third parties as a secret "insurance policy."
We don't need a degree in cybersecurity to see how this was going on against Trump all throughout
the campaign. Not only did they hire thugs to start riots at Trump rallies and protest, a massive
online campaign was staged against Trump.
Rendσn, says Sepϊlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political
operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe's
turnout. As for Sepϊlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought
were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television
and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all
relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and
direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts. The software let him quickly change names, profile
pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the
public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard-or, as he puts it, "When I realized that
people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to
make people believe almost anything."
Sepϊlveda managed thousands of such fake profiles and used the accounts to shape discussion
around topics such as Peρa Nieto's plan to end drug violence, priming the social media pump with
views that real users would mimic. For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter
bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that
the more Lσpez Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepϊlveda knew the currency
issue was a major vulnerability; he'd read it in the candidate's own internal staff memos.
While there's no evidence that Rendon or Sepulveda were involved in the 2016 election, there is
also no evidence that Russian hackers were involved in the 2016 election. There's not even false
evidence. There isn't a hint of it. There isn't a witness, there isn't a document, there's nothing
- it's a conspiracy theory! And a very poor one.
Russian hackers would have had the same or better (probably much better) tools, strategies, and
resources than Sepulveda. But none of this shows up anywhere. If anything, this is an example of
how NOT to hack an election.
Thanks. Right. Hillary's official electronic communications is more correct than Hillary's emails.
(And the "wipe them, you mean like with a rag?" from Hillary, after having been in government
all her adult life and after having presented herself as a modern Secretary of State who knew
all about how government and modern technology worked would have been a funny joke if it hadn't
obviously been intended to cover up enormous crimes.)
Whoever is running the world with all of this fake stuff and all of the monitoring of people and
petty false propganda, they pretty much suck at it. it is as if they are claiming to be running
the world using "training wheels". As a substitute for God they stink! Grade D-!
The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it, it only has to
be presented by the only sources these imbeciles are willing to use: their fucking TV sets. Most
people are so deluded by their main source of entertainment and information that they wouldn't
give a shit if incontrovertible evidence that their TV information source was lying was presented
to them.
Most people I know don't want to know anything that can't be spoonfed to them on a TV screen.
"The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it..."
Like the tale that the only steel highrise buildings to ever collapse due to fires (turning
into dust at near freefall speed) ocurred on a single day 15 years ago, orchestrated, along with
everything else on that fateful day, by a man in a cave half a world away.
and that after every airport was closed and every single commercial plane was grounded, that man's
entire extended family resident in the u.s., some two dozen individuals, was given fbi protection,
rented cars and chartered planes, and flown out of the country without ever being interviewed,
at all, by any law enforcement branch of the government of the united states which, needless to
say, had absolutely no involvement with the deadliest foreign attack on u.s. soil since the war
of 1812, killing nearly 600 more than died at pearl harbor.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/
this was known at the time it happened. what took longer to discover was that the source of
the foreign attack was not a cave in afghanistan or even saudi arabia or the muslim world generally.
all along it was our trusted ally, brave little israel.
Anti-semitism enables one to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the Saudis who have been
spending billions promoting Wahhabism and terrorism, to blame a tiny little country for everything,
without ever having to bother about evidence. Seek help.
"... "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together." ..."
"... "What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," ..."
"... The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time." ..."
.... As reporters were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts of "Fake news!"
Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online.
But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake
stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their
agenda.
In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing on the declining credibility of all
purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to
undermine the mainstream media, a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.
"Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything that they disagree with. And now
it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host, who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship
by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."
Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that turn out to be wrong because of
a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social
media, that the pope had endorsed Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary
Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick facts to draw disputable
conclusions?
"Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson,
the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And
I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together."
The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives to reorient how Americans think
about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally,
mainstream media outlets had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the middle. Republicans
often found that laughable. As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake news" label
is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate source.
"What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea
that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," said Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, a liberal group that
polices the news media for bias. "Therefore, by applying that term to credible outlets, it becomes much more believable."
.... ... ...
Mr. Trump has used the term to deny news reports, as he did on Twitter recently after various outlets said he would stay on as
the executive producer of "The New Celebrity Apprentice" after taking office in January. "Ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!" he wrote.
(He will be credited as executive producer, a spokesman for the show's creator, Mark Burnett, has said. But it is unclear what work,
if any, he will do on the show.)
Many conservatives are pushing back at the outrage over fake news because they believe that liberals, unwilling to accept Mr.
Trump's victory, are attributing his triumph to nefarious external factors.
"The left refuses to admit that the fundamental problem isn't the Russians or Jim Comey or 'fake news' or the Electoral College,"
said Laura Ingraham, the author and radio host. "'Fake news' is just another fake excuse for their failed agenda."
Others see a larger effort to slander the basic journalistic function of fact-checking. Nonpartisan websites like Snopes and Factcheck.org
have found themselves maligned when they have disproved stories that had been flattering to conservatives.
When Snopes wrote about a State Farm insurance agent in Louisiana who had posted a sign outside his office that likened taxpayers
who voted for President Obama to chickens supporting Colonel Sanders, Mr. Mikkelson, the site's founder, was smeared as a partisan
Democrat who had never bothered to reach out to the agent for comment. Neither is true.
"They're trying to float anything they can find out there to discredit fact-checking," he said.
There are already efforts by highly partisan conservatives to claim that their fact-checking efforts are the same as those of
independent outlets like Snopes, which employ research teams to dig into seemingly dubious claims.
Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, has aired "fact-checking" segments on his program. Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist,
has a web program, "Michelle Malkin Investigates," in which she conducts her own investigative reporting.
The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people
you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio
host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time."
Developing nations continued to be the largest buyers of arms in 2015, with Qatar
signing deals for more than $17 billion in weapons last year, followed by Egypt,
which agreed to buy almost $12 billion in arms, and Saudi Arabia, with over $8
billion in weapons purchases.
Although global tensions and terrorist threats have shown few signs of diminishing,
the total size of the global arms trade dropped to around $80 billion in 2015 from
the 2014 total of $89 billion, the study found. Developing nations bought $65 billion
in weapons in 2015, substantially lower than the previous year's total of $79
billion.
The United States and France increased their overseas weapons sales in 2015, as
purchases of American weapons grew by around $4 billion and France's deals increased
by well over $9 billion.
The report, "
Conventional Arms
Transfers to Developing Nations, 2008-2015
," was prepared by the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress, and delivered
to legislators last week. The annual review is considered the most comprehensive
assessment of global arms sales available in an unclassified form. The report adjusts
for inflation, so the sales totals are comparable year to year.
This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.
Cyber security
is a serious risk management operation that firms and governments spend outrageous sums of money
on because hacking attempts, especially from sources in China and Russia, occur in vast numbers
against every remotely desirable target corporate or government each and every day. At my former
employer, the State of Virginia, the data center repelled over two million hacking attempts from
sources in China each day. Northrop Grumman, the infrastructure management outsourcer for the
State of Virginia's IT infrastructure, has had no known intrusions into any Commonwealth of Virginia
servers that had been migrated to their standard security infrastructure thus far since the inception
of their contract in July 2006. That is almost the one good thing that I have to say about NG.
Some state servers, notably the Virginia Department of Health Professions, not under protection
of the NG standard network security were hacked and had private information such as client SSNs
stolen. Retail store servers are hacked almost routinely, but large banks and similarly well protected
corporations are not. Security costs and it costs a lot.
Even working in a data center with an excellent intrusion protection program as part of that
program I had to take an annual "securing the human" computer based training class. Despite all
of the technical precautions we were retrained each year to among other things NEVER put anything
in an E-Mail that we did not want to be available for everyone to read; i.e., to never assume
privacy is protected in an E-Mail. Embarrassing E-Mails need a source. We should assume that there
will always be a hacker to take advantage of our mistakes.
The reality is that all the major world powers (and some minor ones), including us, do this routinely
and always have. While it is entirely appropriate to be outraged that it may have materially determined
the election (which I think is impossible to know, though it did have some impact), we should
not be shocked or surprised by this.
"...I would suggest attacks on Putin's personal business holdings all over the world..."
[My guess is that has been being done a long time ago considering the direction of US/Russian
foreign relations over NATO expansion, the Ukraine, and Syria.
Long before TCP/IP the best way to prevent dirty secrets from getting out was not to have dirty
secrets. It still works.
The jabbering heads will not have much effect on the political opinions of ordinary citizens
because 40 million or more US adults had their credit information compromised by the Target hackers
three years ago. Target had been saving credit card numbers instead of deleting them as soon as
they obtained authorizations for transfers, so that the 40 million were certainly exposed while
more than twice that were probably exposed. Establishment politicians having their embarrassing
E-mails hacked is more like good fun family entertainment than something to get all riled up about.]
Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a
Federal crime. Political parties are private. The Federal government did not protect Target or
Northrop Grumman's managed infrastructure for the Commonwealth of Virginia although either one
can take forensic information to the FBI that will obtain warrants for prosecution. Foreign criminal
operations go beyond the immediate domestic reach of the FBI. Not even Interpol interdicts foreign
leaders unless they are guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
The Federal government can do what it will as there are not hard guidelines for such clandestine
operations and responses. Moreover, there are none to realistically enforce against them, which
inevitably leads to war given sufficient cycles of escalation. Certainly our own government has
done worse (political assassinations and supporting coups with money and guns) with impunity merely
because of its size, reach, and power.
BTW, "the burglar that just ransacked your house" can be arrested and prosecuted by a established
regulated legal system with absolutely zero concerns of escalating into a nuclear war, trade war,
or any other global hostility. So, not the same thing at all. Odds are good though that the burglar
will get away without any of that because when he does finally get caught it will be an accident
and probably only after dozen if not hundreds of B&E's.
There is a line. The US has crossed that line, but always in less developed countries that
had no recourse against us. Putin knows where the line is with the US. He will dance around it
and lean over it, but not cross it. We have him outgunned and he knows it. Putin did not tamper
with an election, a government function. Putin tampered with private data exposing incriminating
information against a political party, which is a private entity rather than government entity.
Whatever we do should probably stay within the rule of law as it gets messy fast once outside
those boundaries.
As far as burglars go I live in a particular working class zip code that has very few burglaries.
It is a bad risk/reward deal unless you are just out to steal guns and then you better make sure
that no one is home. Most people with children still living at home also have a gun safe. Most
people have dogs.
There are plenty burglaries in a lower income zip code nearby and lots more in higher income
zip codes further away, the former being targets of opportunity with less security and possible
drug stashes, which has a faster turnover than fencing big screen TV's. High income neighborhoods
are natural targets with jewelry, cash, credit cards, and high end electronics, but far better
security systems. I don't know much about their actual crime stats because they are on the opposite
side of the City of Richmond VA from me, but I used to know a couple of burglars when I lived
in the inner city. They liked the upscale homes near the University of Richmond on River Road.
"They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined
the election"
And those two statement are not in conflict unless you are a brain dead Fox bot. Big nothing-burgers
like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters.
When the heck are you going to grow up and get past your 5 stages of Sanders grief?
I know - and there used to be some signs of a functional brain. Now it is all "they are all the
same" ism and Hillary derangement syndrome on steroids. Someone who cares need to do an intervention
before it becomes he get gobbled up by "ilsm" ism.
ABC video interview by Martha Raddatz of Donna Brazile 2:43
Adding the following FACTS, not opinion, to the Russian Hacking debate at the DNC
Russian hacks of the DNC began at least as early as April, the FBI informed the DNC in May
of the hacks, NO ONE in the FedGovt offered to HELP the DNC at anytime (allowed it to continue),
and Russia's Putin DID NOT stop after President Obama told Putin in September to "Cut it Out",
despite Obama's belief otherwise
"DNC Chair Says Russian Hackers Attacked The Committee Through Election Day"
'That goes against Obama's statement that the attacks ended after he spoke to Putin in September'
by Dave Jamieson Labor Reporter...The Huffington Post...12/18/2016...10:59 am ET
"The chair of the Democratic National Committee said Sunday that the DNC was under constant
cyber attack by Russian hackers right through the election in November. Her claim contradicts
President Barack Obama's statement Friday that the attacks ended in September after he issued
a personal warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"No, they did not stop," Donna Brazile told Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week." "They came
after us absolutely every day until the end of the election. They tried to hack into our system
repeatedly. We put up the very best cyber security but they constantly [attacked]."
Brazile said the DNC was outgunned in its efforts to fend off the hacks, and suggested the
committee received insufficient protection from U.S. intelligence agencies. The CIA and FBI have
reportedly concluded that Russians carried out the attacks in an effort to help Donald Trump defeat
Hillary Clinton.
"I think the Obama administration ― the FBI, the various other federal agencies ― they informed
us, they told us what was happening. We knew as of May," Brazile said. "But in terms of helping
us to fight, we were fighting a foreign adversary in the cyberspace. The Democratic National Committee,
we were not a match. And yet we fought constantly."
In a surprising analogy, Brazile compared the FBI's help to the DNC to that of the Geek Squad,
the tech service provided at retailer Best Buy ― which is to say well-meaning, but limited.
"They reached out ― it's like going to Best Buy," Brazile said. "You get the Geek Squad, and
they're great people, by the way. They reached out to our IT vendors. But they reached us, meaning
senior Democratic officials, by then it was, you know, the Russians had been involved for a long
time."..."
This new perspective and set of facts is more than distressing it details a clear pattern of Executive
Branch incompetence, malfeasance, and ineptitude (perhaps worse if you are conspiratorially inclined)
im1dc -> im1dc... , -1
The information above puts in bold relief President Obama's denial of an Electoral College briefing
on the Russian Hacks
There is now no reason not to brief the Electors to the extent and degree of Putin's help for
demagogue Donald
(wired.co.uk)
270 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday November 27, 2016 @03:34AM from the help-me-hive-mind
dept. Upworthy co-founder Eli Pariser is leading a group of online volunteers hunting for ways to
respond to the spread of fake news. An anonymous reader quotes Wired UK: Inside a Google Doc,
volunteers
are gathering ideas and approaches to get a grip on the untruthful news stories. It is part analysis,
part brainstorming, with those involved being encouraged to read widely around the topic before contributing.
"This is a massive endeavour but well worth it," they say...
At present, the group is coming up with
a list of potential solutions and approaches . Possible methods the group is looking at include:
more human editors, fingerprinting viral stories then training algorithms on confirmed fakes, domain
checking, the blockchain, a reliability algorithm, sentiment analysis, a Wikipedia for news sources,
and more.
The article also suggests this effort may one day spawn fake news-fighting tech startups.
(rollingstone.com)
335
Posted by EditorDavid
on Sunday December 04, 2016 @12:39PM
from the
ghosts-of-Joseph-McCarthy
dept.
MyFirstNameIsPaul
was one
of several readers who spotted this disturbing instance of fake news about fake
news. An anonymous reader writes:
Last week the Washington Post described
"independent researchers" who'd identified "more than 200 websites as
routine peddlers of Russian propaganda
" that they estimated were viewed
more than 200 million times on Facebook. But the researchers insisted on
remaining anonymous "to avoid being targeted by Russia's legions of skilled
hackers," and when criticized on Twitter,
responded
"Awww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the
subject -- they're so vewwy angwy!!"
The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months,"
writes Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi
, calling the Post's article an
"astonishingly lazy report". (Chris Hedges, who once worked on a Pulitzer
Prize-winning team at the New York Times, even found his site
Truthdig
on the group's dubious list of over 200 "
sites
that reliably echo Russian propaganda
," along with other long-standing
sites like
Zero
Hedge
,
Naked
Capitalism
, and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.) "By
overplaying the influence of Russia's disinformation campaign, the report also
plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists
that it hopes to
combat," complains Adrian Chen, who in 2015 documented real Russian propaganda
efforts which he traced to "a building in St. Petersburg where
hundreds
of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda
."
The Post's article was picked up by other major news outlets (
including
USA Today
), and included an ominous warning that "The
sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and
Google to crack down on 'fake news'."
"... Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines. ..."
"... If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies. ..."
Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking,
by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines.
If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing
and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies.
"... The use of the term, however, rather naοvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed. ..."
"... Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers. ..."
"... Does the organization depend on taxpayer funding for a substantial amount of its budget? ..."
"... Does the organization engage in what would be illegal activities were it not for protective government legislation? ..."
Anonymous leakers at the CIA continue to make claims about Russia and the 2016 election. In response to demands to provide evidence,
the CIA has declined to offer any, refusing to meet with Congressional intelligence committees, and refusing to issue any documents
offering evidence. Instead, the CIA, communicating via leaks, simply says the equivalent of "trust us."
Not troubled by the lack of evidence, many in the media and in the Democratic party have been repeating unsubstantiated CIA claims
as fact.
Of course, as
I've noted before , the history of CIA intelligence is largely a history of missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes, the
failures have been spectacular.
One of the questions that immediately arises in the media in situations like these, however, is "
has the CIA been politicized ?"
When used in this way, the term "politicized" means that the CIA is involved in helping or hurting specific political factions
(e,g., specific ideological groups, pressure groups, or presidential administrations) in order to strengthen the CIA's financial
or political standing.
All Government Agencies Are Politicized
The use of the term, however, rather
naοvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is
assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington.
Such an agency has never existed.
Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain
itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it
possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question
will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers.
This idea might seem plausible to school children in junior-high-school civics classes, but not to anyone who lives in the real
world.
In fact, if we wish to ascertain whether or not an institution or organization is "politicized" we can simply ask ourselves a
few questions:
Does the organization depend on a legal monopoly to accomplish its mission? That is, does the organization benefit from a
government prohibition on other organizations - especially private-sector ones - doing the same thing?
Does the organization depend on taxpayer funding for a substantial amount of its budget?
Was the organization created by government legislation?
Are senior officials appointed by government policymakers (i.e., the President)?
Does the organization engage in what would be illegal activities were it not for protective government legislation?
If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then you are probably dealing with a politicized organization. If the answer
to all of these questions is "yes" - as is the case with the CIA - then you're definitely dealing with a very politicized organization.
(Other "non-political" organizations that fall well within this criteria as well include so-called "private" organizations such as
the Federal Reserve System and Fannie Mae.)
So, it has always been foolish to ask ourselves if the CIA is "politicized" since the answer is obviously "yes" for anyone who
is paying attention.
Nevertheless, the myth that the CIA and agencies like it can be non-political continues to endure, although in many cases, the
charge has produced numerous helpful historical analysis of just how politicized the CIA has been in practice.
Recent Narratives on CIA Politicization
Stories of CIA politicization take at least two forms: One type consists of anti-CIA writers attempting to illustrate how the
CIA acts to manipulate political actors to achieve its own political ends. The other type consists of pro-CIA writers attempting
to cast the CIA as an innocent victim of manipulation by senior Washington officials.
Of course, it doesn't matter whether the provenance of CIA politicking comes from within the agency or outside it. In both cases,
the fact remains that the Agency is a tool for political actors to deceive, manipulate, and attack political enemies.
With CIA leaks apparently attempting to call the integrity of the 2016 election into question, the CIA is once again being accused
of politicization. Consequently, articles in the
Washington
Times , the
Daily Caller , and
The Intercept all question the CIA's motivation and present numerous examples of the Agency's history of deception.
The current controversy is hardly the first time the Agency has been accused of being political, and during the build up to the
Iraq invasion in 2003, for example, the CIA worked with the Bush Administration to essentially manufacture "intelligence."
In his book Failure of Intelligence , Melvin Allan Goodman writes:
Three years after the invasion of Iraq, a senior CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, documented the efforts of the Bush administration
to politicize the intelligence of the CIA on Iraqi WMD and so-called links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Pillar accused the Bush
administration of using policy to drive intelligence production, which was the same argument offered by the chief of British intelligence
in the Downing Street memorandum prior to the war, and aggressively using intelligence to win public support for the decision
to go to war....Pillar does not explain why no senior CIA official protested, let alone resigned in the wake of the president's
misuse of intelligence on Iraq's so-called efforts to obtain uranium ore in Africa. Pillar falsely claimed "for the most part,
the intelligence community's own substantive judgments do not appear to have been compromised," when it was clear that the CIA
wa wrong on every conclusion and had to politicize the intelligence to be so egregiously wrong."
Since then, CIA officials have attempted to rehabilitate the agency by claiming the agency was the hapless victim of the Administration.
But, as Goodman notes, we heard no protests from the Agency when such protests would have actually mattered, and the fact is the
Agency was easily used for political ends. Whether or not some agents wanted to participate in assisting the Bush administration
with trumping up evidence against Iraq remains irrelevant. The fact remains the CIA did it.
Moreover, according to documents compiled by John Prados
at the George Washington University , "The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported" and that
"Under the circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the CIA and other intelligence agencies defended themselves
against the dangers of attack from the Bush administration through a process of self-censorship. That is the very essence of politicization
in intelligence."
In other words, to protect its own budgets and privileges, the CIA reacted quickly to shape its intelligence to meet the political
goals of others.
Journalist Robert Parry has also
attempted to go the CIA-as-victim
route in his own writings. In an article written before the Iraq War debacle, Parry looks at how the Agency was used by both
Reagan and Clinton, and claims that what is arguably of the CIA's biggest analytical errors - repeatedly overstating the economic
strength of the Soviet Union - was the result of pressure applied to the Agency by the Reagan administration. (Parry may be mistaken
here, as the CIA
was
wrong about the Soviet economy long before the Reagan Administration .)
While attempting to defend the CIA, however, Parry is merely providing a list of the many ways in which the CIA serves to manufacture
false information that are useful for political officials.
In this essay for the Center for
International Policy, Goodman further lists many examples of politicization and concludes "Throughout the CIA's 60-year history,
there have been many efforts to slant analytical conclusions, skew estimates, and repress evidence that challenged a particular policy
or point of view. As a result, the agency must recognize the impact of politicization and introduce barriers to protect analysts
from political pressures. Unfortunately, the CIA has largely ignored the problem."
It is difficult to ascertain whether past intelligence failures were due to pressure form the administration or whether they originated
from within the Agency itself. Nevertheless, the intelligence failures are numerous, including:
The CIA was wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
The fact that politicization occurs might help explain some of these failures, but simply claiming "politicization" doesn't erase
the legacy of failure, and it hardly serves as an argument in favor of allowing the CIA to continue to
command huge budgets and essentially
function unsupervised. Regardless of fanciful claims of non-political professionalism, it is undeniable that, as an agency of the
US government, the CIA is a political institution.
The only type of organization that is not politicized is a private-sector organization under a relatively laissez-faire regime.
Heavily regulated private industries and all government agencies are politicized by nature because they depend heavily on active
assistance from political actors to sustain themselves.
It should be assumed that politicized organizations seek to influence policymakers, and thus all the actions and claims of these
organization should be treated with skepticism and a recognition that these organizations benefit from further taxation and expanded
government powers inflicted on ordinary taxpayers and other productive members of society outside the privileged circles of Washington,
DC.
Perimetr -> Chupacabra-322 Dec 23, 2016 11:34 AM
Is the CIA politicized?
...Is the pope catholic?
How many more presidents does the CIA have to kill to answer your question?
Oldwood -> DownWithYogaPants Dec 23, 2016 11:26 AM
How could the CIA NOT be politicized? They collect "intelligence" and use it to influence policy makers without ANY accountability
and no real proof. The CIA operates on CONJECTURE that is completely subjective to bias and agenda. Is that ANYTHING BUT political?
TeaClipper's picture -> TeaClipper Dec 23, 2016 11:24 AM
The CIA was not wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it lied about them. That is a very big distinction.
Old Poor Richard Dec 23, 2016 12:13 PM
The question is whether the CIA is puppeteer and not the puppet.
The Snowden report, jam packed with provably false scurrilous accusations, demonstrates that not only is the US intelligence
community entirely lacking in credibility, but that they believe themselves so powerful that they can indefinitely get away with
baldfaced lies.
The thing is, the deep state can only keep up the charade when they completely control the narrative, the way China does. Hence
the attacks on the first amendment that are accelerating as fast as the attacks on the second amendment. Majority of Americans
don't believe the Russian hacking hoax and it make the CIA increasingly hysterical.
DarthVaderMentor Dec 23, 2016 12:33 PM
The CIA has been politicized. In fact, all the way down to the COS level, and in concert with the State Department. Brennan and
Moran are nothing but Clinton surrogates.
In one embassy in a country where IEDs keep blowing up, there were millions of taxpayer dollars spent and continue to be spent
in "safe spaces" and "comfort food and liquor" inside an embassy (taking away space from the US Marine Giuards for it) to let
"Democrat snowflakes" in senior embassy and CIA positions recover from the Trump elections.
The real reaon for the loss of the Phillipines as an ally may eventually come out that a gay senior embassy official made a
pass at the President of the country. Just like it happened with the gay ambassador in the Dominican Republic.
That Libral You Hate Dec 23, 2016 12:41 PM
I would say the simple answer to the question asked in the headline of this article is "yes" but it is important to actually understand
the nuance of the langer answer.
The critical nuance is that: politics didn't conquor the CIA, but rather the CIA injected itself into politics. I.e. the CIA
aren't political stooges, but act political because they have injected political stooges into politics and they have to act political
to protect them to protect their interests. Thus while the answer is "yes" the question is phrased wrong as: "Has the CIA Been
Politicized," the appropriate question is "Has politics been co-opted by the CIA"
insanelysane Dec 23, 2016 12:50 PM
The first post is spot on except the CIA was in Southeast Asia stirring stuff up to get us into a war. War is big business.
The entire reason for Vietnam was "If Vietnam falls the commies will be marching down Main Street USA afterwards."
Well we fucking lost Vietnam and the commies still aren't marching down Main Street and yet the assessment is still being peddled
by the Corporation.
Kennedy was killed because, even though he was fucking totally drugged up, he still saw Vietnam for what it was.
The Corporation gave Johnson and offer he couldn't refuse, take the keys to the kingdom, just keep "fighting" in Vietnam. I
say fighting because we were just fucking around there. No one in charge wanted to risk winning the war.
And here we are today, 23rd, December, 2016, "fighting" in the Middle East and the Corporation not willing to risk winning
the war. Just need to keep it hot enough for the weapons and ammunition to be used in a nice steady pace to keep business going.
Fox Business News discusses a potential investigation involving CIA Director John Brennan over whether
he leaked information about the Russian hacking investigation to the media
John Brennan takes his cues directly from Barack Obama, which means the entire CIA, Russian hack
investigation, was initiated and conducted under Obama's direct order.
The Russian hack, media spin, has been and remains a political play. National security has very
little to do with it.
There certainly are experts in the field who should know
about the alleged hacking, but they are not allowed to disrupt mainstream media's Russophobe
frenzy. Bet you never saw William Binney on mainstream media. Who is Binney? He is the guy who
put together the NSA's elaborate worldwide surveillance system. He has publicly stated on
alternative news sites, that if something was "hacked", the NSA would instantly know who, when,
and whether the info was passed on to another party. He designed the system. He argues, there was
no hacking for that very reason. Binney insists the e-mails had to have been leaked by an
"insider" who had access to the data. Never heard him on mainstream media huh? Next comes Craig
Murray a former US Ambassador who claims he knows who leaked the e-mails, because he met with the
individual in Washington D.C. Never heard him on mainstream media either huh? Finally, Julian
Assange, the man who released the e-mails. He insisted all along he never got the e-mails from
Russia. Another no show on mainstream media. Whatever happened to the journalistic adage of going
to the source? Assange is the source, but no mainstream media journalist, and I use the term very
loosely, has ventured to speak with him. The accusation has been repeated countless times,
without any evidence, or consulting with any of the above three experts.
Because the big lie has been repeated so many times by
corporate media, about half of the US public, according to a recent poll, believes Russia
interfered, even though there is not a bit of evidence to support it. Once again they take the
bait; hook, line, and sinker.
For believers of Russian hacking, I offer the following analogy. It might, but I doubt it will
help, because you cannot undo the effect of propaganda. You are put on trial for murder that you
did not commit. The prosecutor and judge simply say they have reached a "consensus view", the
phrase offered by intelligence agencies, that you committed the murder and are guilty. You ask
for proof. They offer none. They just keep repeating that you did it. You challenge and ask how
do you know I did it? Answer: we have anonymous sources, but we cannot tell you who they are, nor
can we show you proof.
Just as in the fake run-up to the Iraq war, the expert voices of the opposition are not tolerated
on mainstream media. Do these folks really want a war with Russia? Are they so upset with Trump's
pronouncement that he wanted better relations with Russia? What sane person would not? Hmmm.
It appears there is a war already raging between the Russophobes, who do not want better
relations with Russia, and are doing their best to smear and demonize Putin, and those who do.
This is the same tactic used with Manuel Noriega of Panama, Muarmar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein,
before they made war on all three. Demonize, then make war.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on those who buy into propaganda
without any proof.
The oddity of the above author's first paragraph is that the
CIA was not lying in 2001-03. The CIA said Iraq/Saddam had no
wmds.
In fact, if you lived through it then perhaps you recall the
words cherry-picking and stove-piped intel. Now, I understand
he's CIA so there's no reason to believe them, but ask Larry
Johnson (I know, great name for CIA).
Actually he didn't mention the CIA in the first paragraph.
However in late 2002 CIA director George Tenet and United
States Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited attempts
by Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger in their September
testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
using intelligence Italy, Britain, and France.
Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced serious doubt on the
authenticity of the documents to the UN Security Council,
judging them counterfeit but the CIA while having
suspicions, largely kept them to themselves.
The author of the above article, Joe Clifford is referring
to what CIA Chief George Tenet who represented US
intelligence, said: it was "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet
was quoted over and over again by Bush-Dick regime to
justify US war against Iraq. After Tenet said those words,
CIA neither contradicted him nor corrected him which meant
that they went along with the "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD.
Tenet, representing US intelligence, even sat quietly
behind Powell at the UNSC when Powell was spewing his lies
about Iraq's nonexistent WMD.
Not only to officials repeat false assertions over and over,
but those who hear the falsities, themselves start repeating
them. The more outrageous, the more they are repeated.
You forgot former Yugoslavia.There they "sharpened "their
tools.They "demonized" that country,demonized their
President,trained and financed those local soldiers and then
destroyed that country while "peace making".Filthy
BASTARDS.And you people call USA a decent country?They lied
when they created that country and still their mouths and
deeds are full of lies,murder and plunder.And their Churches
are cheer leaders in that endeavour yet they will proclaim
even this Christmas "Peace to the world" while they will plot
more of the same.They preach one thing but their actions are
totally opposite.They leave wrecked countries behind them and
those people end up feeding from containers.I hope that they
choke on that stolen turkey.
The counter tactic for the "big lie" is the "big truth."
Ordinary people have access to e-mail, social media and
website comments. No secret organization is needed. Just make
counter-bullturdism part of your personal routine.
This takes time. Most people invest little thought into
the news they digest. Quite often, news (or "news") is not
even digested at all, just internalised. They know this.
The CIA, th eDNC, all of them. They rely on public apathy
to survive.
This the the lie the liberals love just like Iraq's wmd was
the lie so dear to the conservatives. It's sickening the way
these partisan idiots are so easily manipulated.
It doesn't matter who hacked the emails one bit! That right
there is the point the powers that be want us to argue about
endlessly, because it draws attention away from what actually
matters: What matters is that the emails revealed the truth
about the democratic party, and that they rigged their
primaries. What matters is that the press did not reveal this
and since the reveal, they have been trying to distract
people from the truth. It is the press and the Democratic
party that were influencing the 2016 election by lying and
cheating, not the Russians or whoever hacked the email.
The e-mails were not hacked: they were leaked. Every time
anyone refers to the "hacked" e-mails, it raises the
question "Who dunnit ?" This is a wild goose chase. The
e-mails were leaked by a disgusted insider.
The contents of the leaks/hacks were almost never claimed to
be false. Even the very faint cries of "the e-mails were
doctored" eventually died out. Nobody has stepped in to claim
that the information was false since. This means that all
Wikileaks revealed was true. Whoever was responsible for
providing this information has done a very valuable public
service. Yes, even if it (somehow) was the Russians. To deny
that the leak/hack was beneficial to the public is insane.
Not that we didn't know beforehand that the CIA are quite
crazy, but still. I would at least have expected them to
welcome this 4th detente. I mean, they have thus far shown
that their intelligence gathering efforts in Russia are
laughably bad. Do they not want some respite form the
humiliation? It would at least be good PR.
During the third and last presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and
Democrat Hillary Clinton, debate moderator Chris Wallace
pulled a quote from a speech
Clinton had given to Brazilian bankers, noting the
information had been made available to the public via WikiLeaks.
Instead of
answering the question, Clinton blamed the Russian government for the leaks
,
alleging "
[t]he Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans
,"
hacking "
American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions
in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our
election
."
Following the claim,
Clinton criticized Trump for
saying
"
[Clinton] has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else
,"
repeating her assertion that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the Russian
government had been behind the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack.
Despite her claim, reality couldn't be more different.
Instead of 17 agencies, only the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have
offered the public
any input on this matter, claiming the DNC attacks "
are
consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts
."
Without offering any evidence, these two - not 17 - agencies hinted that the
Kremlin
could
be behind the cyber attack.
But saying they
believe
the hacks come from the Russians is far short of saying they
know
the Russians
were behind them.
During an
interview on Aaron Klein's Sunday radio program
, former high-ranking NSA
intelligence official-turned-whistleblower,
William Binney
, discussed the alleged Russian involvement in our elections,
suggesting the cyber attack against the DNC may not have originated from the Russian
government. Instead, Binney says, a
"
disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker
"
is likely behind the breach.
According to Binney, what Mueller meant is that
the FBI has access to the NSA
database and that it's accessed without any oversight, meaning the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), as well as the FBI, have open access to anything the NSA has access to. "
So
if the FBI really wanted [Clinton's and the DNC emails] they can go into that database
and get them right now
," Binney
told
Klein.
Asked
if he believed the NSA had copies of all Clinton's emails,
"
including
the deleted correspondence
,"
Binney said:
"
Yes. That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get
them right there
."
While Binney seems to be the only intelligence insider who has come forward with this
type of analysis, a young man from Russia whose servers were implicated in the recent
hacking of the DNC sites says he has information that will lead to the hacker - yet the
FBI won't knock on his door.
In a conversation with the
New York Times
, Vladimir M. Fomenko said his server rental company, King
Servers, is oftentimes used by hackers. Fomenko added that the hackers behind the attack
against computerized election systems in Arizona and Illinois - which, like the DNC
hack, were
also linked to the Russian government by the FBI
- had used his servers.
According to the 26-year-old entrepreneur,
"[w]e have the information.
If the F.B.I. asks, we are ready to supply the I.P. addresses, the logs, but nobody
contacted us."
"
It's like nobody wants to sort this out,
"
he
added
.
After learning that two renters using the nicknames Robin Good and Dick Robin had
used his servers to hack the Arizona and Illinois voting systems, Fomenko
released a statement
saying he learned about the problem through the news and shut
down the two users down shortly after.
While he
told the
New York Times
he doesn't know who the hackers are, he used his
statement to report that the hackers are not Russian security agents.
"
The analysis of the internal data allows King Servers to confidently
refute any conclusions about the involvement of the Russian special services in this
attack
,"
he
said
on September 15, the
New York Times
reported.
According to Fomenko, he found a trail left by the hackers through their contact with
King Servers' billing page, which leads to the next step in the chain
"
to
bring investigators in the United States closer to the hackers
."
The clients used about 60 I.P. addresses to contact Fomenko, including addresses
belonging to server companies in Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Britain, and Sweden.
With these addresses in hand, authorities could track the hackers down.
But while this information is somewhat recent, few news organizations found it
necessary to report on the King Servers link. In the past, however, at least one major
news network mentioned Binney.
In August 2016, Judge Andrew Napolitano
commented
on
the DNC hack.
On "Judge Napolitano Chambers," the Judge said that while the DNC, government
officials, and the Clinton campaign all accuse the Russians of hacking into the DNC
servers,
"
the Russians had nothing to do with it.
"
"A group of retired senior intelligence officials, including the NSA whistleblower
William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis,
NSA), have posted an open letter on consortiumnews.com that destroys the Obama
administration's "Russian hacking" narrative.
Within the letter, Binney argues that, thanks to the NSA's "extensive domestic
data-collection network," any data removed remotely from Hillary Clinton or DNC
servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured
by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination
point and destination address of those packets. As Binney further notes, the only way
the leaks could have avoided NSA detection is if they were never passed over fiber
networks but rather downloaded to a thumb drive by someone with internal access to
servers."
The first several months of a new administration are inevitably seen as an opening for
those who hope to influence the White House over the next four years. The Senate Ukraine
Caucus-a bipartisan group of senior lawmakers who have lobbied intensively for a closer
U.S.-Ukraine relationship-hopes to take advantage of this sensitive period, in which the
new president will order policy reviews, modifications in existing programs, or even a
clean break from the past.
In a letter to
President-elect Trump, the caucus writes that it is absolutely critical for the United
States to enhance its support to Kiev at a time when Vladimir Putin's Russia continues
to support a separatist movement on Ukrainian soil. "Quite simply,"
the group claims
,
"Russia has launched a military land-grab in Ukraine that is unprecedented in modern
European history. These actions in Crimea and other areas of eastern Ukraine dangerously
upend well-established diplomatic, legal, and security norms that the United States and
its NATO allies painstakingly built over decades."
On this score, the senators are correct. Russia's
stealth invasion, occupation, and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula was for all
intents and purposes a land-grab denounced not only by the United States but by the
United Nations as a violation of state sovereignty and self-determination.
But let's not kid ourselves; this isn't the first time
a stronger power will attempt to change the borders of a weaker neighbor, nor will it be
the last. The Russians saw an opportunity to immediately exploit the confusion of
Ukraine's post-Viktor Yanukovych period. Moscow's signing of the Minsk accords, an
agreement that was designed to de-escalate the violence in Eastern Ukraine through
mutual demobilization of heavy weapons along the conflict line and a transfer of border
control from separatist forces back to the Ukrainian government, has been stalled to the
point of irrelevance.
It is incontrovertible that, were it not for Russia's
military support and intervention in the summer of 2014, the Ukrainian army would likely
have been able to defeat the separatist units that were carving out autonomous "peoples'
republics" in the east-or at the very least, degrade rebel capabilities to such an
extent that Kiev would be able to win more concessions at the negotiating table.
Yet while we should acknowledge Russia's violations of
international law and the U.N. Charter, U.S. and European policymakers also need to
recognize that Ukraine is far more important for Moscow's geopolitical position than
Washington's.
There is a reason why Vladimir Putin made the fateful
decision in 2014 to plunge Russian forces into Ukraine, and it wasn't because he was
itching for a war of preemption. He deployed Russian forces across the Ukrainian
border-despite the whirlwind of international condemnation and the Western financial
sanctions that were likely to accompany such a decision-because preserving a pro-Russia
bent in the Ukraine body politic was just too important for Moscow's regional position.
Grasping this reality in no way excuses Moscow's
behavior. It merely explains why the Russian government acted the way it did, and why
further U.S. military assistance to the Ukrainian security forces would be ill-advised.
In fact, one could make a convincing case that providing hundreds of millions of dollars
in security assistance to the Ukrainian government wouldn't help the situation at all,
and might lead Kiev to delude itself into thinking that Washington will come to its
immediate military aid in order to stabilize the battlefield.
Since 2015, the United States Congress has authorized
$750 million to improve the defensive capabilities of the Ukrainian military and
security forces. Congress has followed up those funds with an additional $650 million
earmarked for the Ukrainians over the next two years, a hefty sum that the next
administration would probably use as a message to the Russians that further territorial
encroachment on Ukrainian territory would produce more casualties in their ranks.
What the next administration needs to ask itself,
however, is whether more money thrown at the Ukraine problem will be more or less likely
to cause further violence in the country and turmoil for Ukraine's elected government.
Russia has demonstrated consistently that it will simply not permit a pro-Western
democratic government from emerging along its western border-and that if a pro-Western
government is formed in Kiev, Moscow will do its best to preserve a pro-Russian bent in
Ukraine's eastern provinces. Hundreds of millions of dollars in appropriations haven't
forced Russia to change that calculation so far; it's not likely that hundreds of
millions more will be any more successful. Indeed, every time Washington has escalated
its rhetoric or authorized money for Ukraine's military, the Russians have responded in
equal terms.
The political crisis in Ukraine is far from resolved,
in large measure because of Russia's own actions on the ground and its nonexistent
implementation of the Minsk peace agreement. But the situation in the east, while not
fully peaceful by any means, is far less violent than it was at the war's peak in 2015.
Sometimes, not weighing in can be just as smart for the U.S. national interest as
getting involved-a reflex that is has been the forte of Washington's foreign policy
establishment since the end of the Cold War.
Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
In response to the latest imposition of US sanctions on Russia, the Kremlin said on Wednesday that
the new sanctions would further damage relations between the two countries and that Moscow would
respond with its own measures. "We regret that Washington is continuing on this destructive path,"
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call.
As a reminder, on Tuesday the United States widened sanctions against Russian businessmen and
companies adopted after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in Ukraine.
"We believe this damages bilateral relations ... Russia will take commensurate measures."
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov
Then again, it is difficult to see how sanctions between the two administration could be any more
"damaged": also on Wednesday, the Kremlin said it did not expect the incoming U.S. administration
to reject NATO enlargement overnight and that almost all communications channels between Russia and
the United States were frozen, the RIA news agency reported.
" Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen. We don't communicate with one
another, or (if we do) we do so minimally ," Peskov said.
Additionally, RIA said that according to Peskov "he did not know whether President Vladimir Putin
would seek re-election in 2018."
"Everyone's heads are aching because of work and with projects and nobody is thinking or talking
about elections," Peskov said.
Then again, the sanctions may soon be history.
According to a Bloomberg report , the U.S. will start easing its penalties, imposed over the
showdown in Ukraine in 2014, during the next 12 months, according to 55 percent of respondents in
a Bloomberg survey, up from 10 percent in an October poll. Without the restrictions, Russia's economic
growth would get a boost equivalent to 0.2 percentage point of gross domestic product next year and
0.5 percentage point in 2018, according to the median estimates in the poll.
"It's still a toss-up whether the U.S. will ease sanctions quickly, with the EU lagging, but the
direction of travel is toward easier sanctions or less enforcement, which could reduce financing
costs," said Rachel Ziemba, the New York-based head of emerging markets at 4CAST-RGE. "We think the
macro impact would be greater in the medium term than short term as it facilitates a rate easing
trend that is already on course. In the longer term, it gives more choice of investment."
Trump, who's called President Vladimir Putin a better leader than Barack Obama, has said he
may consider recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and lifting the curbs. While
dogged by concerns that Russia intervened to tip this year's elections in the Republican candidate's
favor, Trump has already showed his hand by planning to stack his administration with officials
supportive of closer cooperation with the Kremlin, from Michael Flynn, the president-elect's national
security adviser, to Exxon Mobil Corp. chief Rex Tillerson, a candidate for secretary of state.
An equally important consequence of any policy change by Trump would be its affect on the EU's
own penalties on Russia, with more economists saying the bloc will follow suit. Forty percent
of respondents said in the Dec. 16-19 survey that the EU will begin easing sanctions in the next
12 months, compared with 33 percent in October.
"If the U.S. eases sanctions, it won't be possible to achieve a consensus among EU member states
to keep their sanctions regime in place as currently formulated," said Charles Movit, an economist
at IHS Markit in Washington.
And although it is always possible to claim that all of Obama's failures stem from mere
incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly
competent at being incompetent?
Obama is not a Russian agent but could very well be a Soviet agent.
Being a dumb fuck whose only skill is reading a teleprompter, he has no idea how to resolve
the change in the world since the Soviet Union disintegrated.
A Russian in Crimea told me of a recent past winter near disaster when Ukraine shut off the power
(and water) - somewhat covered here on ZH. Only a truly heroic effort by Russia to bring
in generators kept them from living in dangerous conditions. Crimea is more solidly pro-Russian
than it was before the vote to secede.
All Ukrainians should understand that the NWO (controlled by the elite and their Western banks)
will subjugate the Ukraine. Evidence for this is abundant, but the most striking example
is the willingness to accept millions of non-European refugees, while few Ukrainians are allowed
into Western countries.
Yes, there is genuine reason for resentment (Holodomar), but this terror was executed by the
Bolshevik Lazar Kaganovich (which means son of Kagan - as in Ron Kagan - husband of Nudelman -
understand the connection?). More Russians died under this same type of Bolshevik terror
than any other ethnicity in the USSR.
Russia is no longer the USSR, and seeks to return to a society of Christian values. Ukrainians
should seek peace with their Russian brothers. It would be to the benefit of all Western
countries, which is why the NWO is trying everything to prevent it.
The UN Mediator for Palestine, "The U.S. appointed Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden" was assassinated
in 1948 in Jerusalam by the likudnik-future izraeli Prime Ministers Begin & Shamir....
FACT:
"Folke Bernadotte ,
Count of Wisborg
( Swedish : Greve
af Wisborg ; 2 January 1895 17 September 1948) was a Swedish
diplomat and nobleman. During
World War II he negotiated
the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German
concentration camps
including 450 Danish Jews from the
Theresienstadt camp.
They were released on 14 April 1945. [1]
[2] [3] In 1945, he received a German surrender offer from
Heinrich Himmler
, though the offer was ultimately rejected.
After the war, Bernadotte was unanimously chosen to be the
United
Nations Security Council mediator in the
ArabIsraeli conflict
of 19471948. He was assassinated in
Jerusalem in 1948 by the
militant Zionist group
Lehi while pursuing
his official duties. Upon his death,
Ralph Bunche took up
his work at the UN, but was removed from the post around six months after Bernadotte was assassinated,
at the critical period of recognition of the fledgling state. ....."
Likudniks like present-day murderer & chief Benny-Boy Nutandyahoo!!!
It's 100% bonefide fuckin' TERRORISTS that are the leaders of the rothschild colony & real
estate project in the eastern Mediterranean.
Wow! Those are some stringent sources! Wikipedia, where you can edit the text to read however
you wish before citing it, ...great source! ( Seriously? A wiki cite ends the discussion for me
every single time. Dead. (Kind of like interviewing an architect who says Fisher-Price is his
inspiration). Next up is the legendary duckduckgo. Move over Library of Congress! And of course
WhatReallyHappened is the next up on the hit parade. Jeeze, I spent a cargoload of time and money
earning a masters in history. I wish I had had wiki. It would have been so much easier, AND I
would be as smart as this guy telling us all about how stupid we all are. LOL!. X_in_Sweden, go
to Wiki and look up "Useful Idiot" while standing in front of a mirror.
Zionists are also behind the use of Saudi wahabbists. It's a twofer. It clears land that Israel
covets and is part of the plan to get Christians to fight Muslims, wipping each other out.
Well Mr Chumbawamba let me congratulate you on joining the big club of anti-jewish fascism, you
share a honorable position together with Nazism and Islamic Fascism. Fuck off paranoid religitard.
I have done business with Israelis Most of them think that they are in a crunch existential
mess.
The reality is that the tech and arms business is pretty cushy and they are reluctant to give
it up.
If they get a decent guarantee of their space (and maybe a couple more settlements) they might
scale down a tad.
They can do an up-front deal with the head choppers in Riyadh any time they want because the
princes do not want to live on a sea of radioactive glass.
Obama and the current congress already locked this in until 2026 (see below) which takes
us past 2 terms of Trump. Doubt Trump could change/drain this if he wanted (?) as
current congress not only did the deal but added $500M per year to the previous Bush 10 year deal
which was set to expire in 2018. Dem/Rep... it is going to happen no matter.
"The United States has finalized a $38 billion package of military aid for
Israel
over the next 10 years, the largest of its kind ever, and the two allies plan to sign the
agreement on Wednesday, American and Israeli officials said". NY Times Sept 2016,
When I was a kid, we had a pump to fill the water trough for the animals. There was a coffee
can near it, that you used to take some of the water that was left in the water trough and pour
it into the pump. This was known as "priming the pump". You had to do this to allow
the pump to pump more water into the trough from the well.
America is a money-well for Israel. They take a little bit of the money that we flood
them with, and they donate to enough politicians campaign to insure that those politicians will
vote to turn on the money spigot, filling up Israels trough with money. Don't worry, they'll
save a coffee can or two of it to prime the pump again next time.
I really don't care if Israel lives or dies. If they live and prosper, that's just fine
with me. But what pisses me off is this system that allows them to pump money from us, just
by using a tiny portion of it to bribe our politicians with campaign contributions. This
bribing results in not just lost treasure, but also lost blood, as we fight wars to weaken Israels
neighbors, again, only because our politicians are being bribed with foreign donations.
I would prefer we find ways to jail any politician that gets money from foreign countries.
I would also prefer we put an end to Super PACs, since the foreign money will simply migrate to
those. It is bullshit that our system is set up so that the honest politicians that refuse
to sell out are promptly voted out of office because their competitor, who is willing to sell
out, is flooded with campaign money. This ends up giving us representatives who do not represent
our interests at all.
My greatest fear in Trump being a plant is that he is supposed to calm relations with Russia,
which will open up the opportunity for the big event. This gives them more time on the surface
while the deep state continues spreading chaos along Russia's borders.
I suspect Russia would be aware of this possibility however.
Trump is going to keep allowing Israelis to bribe American politicians.
Aid money goes full circle. The tax payers are the losers as usual. Trump needs to look into
the dual citizanship of congress stoolies. Drain that swamp first to put that coin into merican
infrastructure renewal/upgrades.=.jobs.
Biden's son in Ukraine couldn't help things much. How cool was the "invasion" of Crimea?
I thought it was cool. I was kind of wishing Texas would pull something like that, maybe
with NJ.
I know you have "invasion" written in a way that shows you know it was NOT an invasion. The speed
a decisiveness was certainly impressive, shame the Donbass has been relegated to the roll of dead
buffer zone though. I understand the strategic benefit of letting the Ukrainian `Army` bog down
there and bleed resources, but a lot of Ethnic Russians are dying and suffering as a result.
The Ukro-Nazis have just tried to re-run the attack on Debaltsevo, where there were put through
the meat grinder last winter. Guess what, they ended up in the grinder again, even though the
Novorossians are following Minsk rules on sending heavy armor away from the front. The Ukrops
lost up to 100 dead, a large number just left on the ground as the survivors fled. The wounded
were airlifted to Kharkov military hospital.
One Ukrop unit reported 25 dead in 3 hours of fighting.
It is impossible to overstate the stakes involved in the latest controversy over Russia. They
involve trillions of dollars in warfare largess to the tens of thousands of bureaucratic warfare-state
parasites who are sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.
Ever since the advent of the U.S. national-security state after World War II, America has needed
official enemies, especially ones that induce fear, terror, and panic within the American citizenry.
When people are fearful, terrified, and panicked, they are much more willing, even eager, to have
government officials do whatever is necessary to keep them safe and secure. It is during such times
that liberty is at greatest risk because of the propensity of government to assume emergency powers
and the proclivity of the citizenry to let them have them.
That's what the Cold War was all about. The official enemies were communism and the Soviet Union,
which was an alliance of nations that had Russia at its center. U.S. officials convinced Americans
that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy to take over the world, with its principal base in
Moscow.
A correlative threat was Red China, whose communist hordes were supposedly threatening to flood
the United States.
There were also the communist outposts, which were considered spearheads pointed at America. North
Korea. North Vietnam. Cuba, which, Americans were told, was a communist dagger pointed out America's
neck from only 90 miles away.
And then there was communism the philosophy, along with the communists who promoted it. It was
clear, U.S. officials gravely maintained, that communism was spreading all across the world, including
inside the U.S. Army, the State Department, and Hollywood, and that communists were everyone, including
leftist organizations and even sometimes under people's beds.
Needless to say, all this fear, terror, and panic induced people to support the ever-growing budgets,
influence, and power of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, which had become the national-security
branch of the federal government - and the most powerful branch at that. Few cared that their hard-earned
monies were being taken from them by the IRS in ever-increasing amounts. All that mattered was being
kept safe from the communists.
Hardly anyone questioned or challenged this warfare-state racket. President Eisenhower alluded
to it in his Farewell Address in 1961, when he pointed out that this new-fangled governmental structure,
which he called "the military industrial complex," now posed a grave threat to the freedoms and democratic
processes of the American people.
One of those who did challenge this official-enemy syndrome was President John F. Kennedy. At
war with his national-security establishment in 1963, Kennedy threw the gauntlet down at his famous
Peace Speech at American University in June of that year. There was no reason, Kennedy said, that
the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) and the rest of the communist world couldn't live in peace co-existence
and even friendship, even if the nations were guided by different ideologies and philosophies. Kennedy
announced that it was time to end the Cold War against Russia and the rest of the communist world.
What Kennedy was proposing was anathema to the national-security state and its ever-growing army
of voracious contractors and subcontractors who were feeding at the public trough. How dare he remove
the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) as America's official enemy? How could the Pentagon, the CIA, and
the NSA justify their ever-growing budgets and their ever-growing emergency powers? Indeed, how could
they justify the very existence of their Cold War totalitarian-type apparatus known as a "national
security state" without a giant official enemy to strike fear, terror, and panic with the American
people?
Once Kennedy was removed from the scene, everything returned to "normal." The Cold War continued.
The Vietnam War against the commies in Asia to prevent more dominoes from falling got ramped up.
The Soviet Union, Red China, and the worldwide communist conspiracy continued to be America's big
official enemies. The military and intelligence budgets continued to rise. The number of warfare
state parasites continued soaring.
Seemingly, there was never going to be an end to the process. Until one day, the unexpected suddenly
happened. The Berlin Wall came crashing down, East and West Germany were reunited, and the Soviet
Union was dismantled, all of which struck unmitigated fear within the bowels of the American deep
state.
Oh sure, there was still Cuba, Red China, North Korea, and Vietnam but those communist nations,
for some reason, just didn't strike fear, terror, and panic within Americans as Russia did.
U.S. officials needed a new official enemy. Enter Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, who had
served as a partner and ally of the U.S. government during the 1980s when he was waging war against
Iran, which, by that time, had become converted from official friend to official enemy of the U.S.
Empire. Throughout the 1990s, Saddam was made into the new official enemy. Like the Soviets and the
communists, Saddam was coming to get us and unleash mushroom clouds all over America. The American
people bought it and, not surprisingly, budgets for the national-security establishment continued
their upward soar.
Then came the 9/11 attacks in retaliation for what the Pentagon and the CIA were doing in the
Middle East, followed by with the retaliatory invasions Afghanistan and Iraq. Suddenly the new official
enemies were "terrorism" and then later Islam. Like the communists of yesteryear, the terrorists
and the Muslims were coming to get us, take over the federal government, run the IRS and HUD, and
force everyone to study the Koran. The American people bought it and, not surprisingly, budgets for
the national-security establishment continued their upward soar.
The problem is that Americans, including U.S. soldiers and their families, are now growing weary
of the forever wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. But U.S. national-security state officials
know that if they bring the troops home, the official enemies of terrorism and Islam disappear at
the same time.
That's why they have decided to return to their old, tried and true official enemy - Russia and,
implicitly, communism. It's why the U.S. broke its promise to Russia to dismantle NATO. It's why
the U.S. supported regime change in the coup in Ukraine. It's why the U.S. wants Ukraine into NATO
- to enable the U.S. to install missiles on Russia's border. It's why the national-security state
is "pivoting" toward Asia - to provoke crises with Red China. It's why they are accusing Russia of
interfering with the U.S. presidential election and campaigning for Donald Trump. The aim of it all
is to bring back the old Cold War official enemies of Russia, China, and communism, in order to keep
Americans afraid, terrified, and panicked, which then means the continuation of ever-growing budgets
to all those warfare state parasites who are sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.
With his fight against the CIA over Russian hacking and his desire to establish normal relations
with Russia, Donald Trump is clearly not buying into this old, tried-and-true Russia-as-official
enemy narrative. In the process, he is posing a grave threat to the national-security establishment
and its ever-growing budgets, influence, and power.
the article contain at least one blatant lie which discredits its connect: the assertion the Sony
attack was from North Korea. No mentioning of Flame and Stixnet. Another proof that NYT is a part
of Clinton campaign and became a neocons mouthpiece...
Notable quotes:
"... How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service? ..."
"... I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization. ..."
"... What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong. ..."
"... Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. ..."
"... What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus. ..."
"... The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails? ..."
"... If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. ..."
"... The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. ..."
"... The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. ..."
"... That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you. ..."
"... I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot ..."
"... I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak. ..."
"... Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth? ..."
"... I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this. ..."
An aspect that truly surprises me is the hopeless ineptitude of the DNC response (which could
easily have parallels in the RNC).
Irrespective of who the cyber-attacker is, it's astounding in this day and age that sensitive
organizations do not pre-arm themselves with the highest security, and treat every sign of interference
(eg, an actual FBI WARNING PHONE CALL) as a major alarm.
Sadly, that this response is probably replicated all over the place underscores a theory I've
held for some time: Technology will kill democracy. Maybe it already has.
I'm surprised at what's missing here. How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward
Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all,
and democracy, a great service?
I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented
conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization.
What they
were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong.
Assange
and Putin (if he was involved) revealed the truth. And since Clinton took no care to guard her
private emails, mixed with public communications, how much sympathy is she owed?
Clinton herself
was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing
the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly
fellow in his stead. We do this sort of thing all the time, so if the Russians "interfere" in
our electoral process by revealing true stuff (far short of fomenting a coup like we did in Ukraine),
isn't that just tit for tat? We even hacked into the communications of European leaders and international
organizations. We were the first to use cyber warfare (Stuxnet, v. Iran), so how can we play holier
than thou? What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time
to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus.
The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but
I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November
9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote
because of the release of these e-mails?
The bigger issue for me is that because we are now politicizing this hacking (i.e. making the
argument that the hacking helped Republicans), many Republicans are opposed to investigating it.
If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only
involved email systems, I am not concerned.
The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed
the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment
of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent.
The emails
also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when
he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported
it.
That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails
revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting
and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that
Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get
on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.
I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason
for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down
playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the
investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands
of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which
told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with
the shoe on the other foot
I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On
the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated.
On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight
in, so to speak.
Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown
by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the
Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that
the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the
Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth?
I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and
elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson
from this.
The agent could have walked over to the DNC headquarters and shown the DNC IT consultant his
badge. Or he could have invited the DNC IT consultant to his office--confirming his true identity.
Instead, the two communicated for several months just by phone, and as a result, the DNC IT consultant
did not fully believe he was speaking to an FBI agent, and so he did not act as aggressively to
search for the possible cyber intrusion.
She lost, get over it. Yes the Electoral College is obsolete. Yes some voting machines can
be hacked, but no-one is claiming that in states with tight results. Let's see what the official
investigation says, and who says it.
For better or worse Mr. Trump will be our next President because he won the election. Personally
I'm delighted that he may damp down the over-the-top Russophobia that is swirling around DC, "defense"
contractor Congressional shills, & the offices of the NYT but nowhere else in the country.
It's time for progressives to emerge from Obama-daze and convince the rest of the country that
they have a better vision for this country's future than that offered by conservatives/reactionaries.
One that doesn't involve bombing hapless foreigners. Articulate your policies as best you can,
learn from your defeats and from your victories. Onward!
If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only
involved email systems, I am not concerned. The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed
the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment
of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. The emails
also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when
he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported
it. That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails
revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting
and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that
Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get
on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.
"... Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider? ..."
"... Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda. ..."
"... Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60. ..."
"... And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer. ..."
"... This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ? ..."
Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has
met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.
While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with
hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges
are just propaganda and insinuations.
And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as
they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels.
Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to
implicate a wrong party.
As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.
Or you can explain why you believe strange Faux news conspiracy stories with absolutely no evidence
that this person was in a position to hack the computers? Or why do you believe the obvious hugely
conflicted statements from Wikileaks operatives, who would never want to admit that they were
played by the Russians? Or a guy like Snowden who's life depend on Putins charity? Why would those
sources make anybody question the clear evidence already presented?
The fact that NSA is not going to publish all its evidence, is not a surprise. No need to tell
the Russians and other hackers how they can avoid detection. But it is not just the government
that conclude Russian involvement. Private company experts have reached the same conclusion. The
case for a Russian government hack is about as good as it can get.
Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.
Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually
looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests
state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time
(German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential
election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60.
And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still
is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer.
This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely
disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly
want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ?
That's what this hysteria is now about, I think.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> likbez... , -1
The NSA is very good at finding the source of intrusion attempts because they happen all the time
every day from China, Russia, North Korea and just little island backwaters in the Pacific.
Doing
something to stop or punish the perpetrators is what is hard. Individual US installation instances
must each be protected by their own firewalls and then still monitored for unusual variations
in traffic patterns through firewalls to detect IP spoofing.
"... But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable -- up to a complete reverse on certain promises. ..."
"... So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama) toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites ) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism. ..."
"... After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in 1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date. ..."
I think the shift from New Deal Capitalism to neoliberalism proved to be fatal for the form
of democracy that used to exist in the USA (never perfect, and never for the plebs).
Neoliberalism as a strange combination of socialism for the rich and feudalism for the poor
is anathema for democracy even for the narrow strata of the US society who used to have a say
in the political process. Like Bolshevism was dictatorship of nomenklatura under the slogan of
"Proletarians of all countries, unite!", neoliberalism is more like dictatorship of financial
oligarchy under the slogan "The financial elite of all countries, unite!")
In this sense Trump is just the logical end of the process that started in 1980 with Reagan,
or even earlier with Carter.
And at the same time [he is] the symptom of the crisis of the system, as large swats of population
this time voted against status quo and that created the revolutionary situation when the elite
was unable to govern in the old fashion. That's why, I think, Hillary lost and Trump won.
But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably
is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his
deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable
-- up to a complete reverse on certain promises.
So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama)
toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version
of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites
) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism
and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism.
After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead
dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How
soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into
another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism
in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in
1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date.
And the slide toward military dictatorship does not necessary need to take a form of junta,
which takes power via coup d'ιtat. The control of the government by three letter agencies ("national
security state") seems to be sufficient, can be accomplished by stealth, and might well be viewed
as a form of military dictatorship too. So it can be a gradual slide: phase I, II, III, etc.
The problem here as with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR is the growing level of degeneration
of elite and the growth of influence of deep state, which includes at its core three letter agencies.
As Michail Gorbachev famously said about neoliberal revolution in the USSR "the process already
started in full force". He just did not understand at this point that he already completely lost
control over neoliberal "Perestroika" of the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika
In a way, the US Presidents are now more and more ceremonial figures that help to maintain
the illusion of the legitimacy of the system. Obama is probably the current pinnacle of this process
(which is reflected in one of his nicknames -- "teleprompter" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/obama-photo-caption-contest-teleprompter_n_1821154.html)
.
You probably could elect a dog instead of Trump and the US foreign policy will stay exactly
the same. This hissy fits about Russians that deep state gave Trump before December 19, might
be viewed as a warning as for any potential changes in foreign policy.
As we saw with foreign policy none of recent presidents really fully control it. They still
are important players, but the question is whether they are still dominant players. My impression
is that it is already by-and-large defined and implemented by the deep state. Sometimes dragging
the President forcefully into the desirable course of actions.
"... To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish. ..."
"... The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk. ..."
"... That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future. ..."
"... We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity. ..."
"... Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian. ..."
"... And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party. ..."
It was only after listening to the Donna Brazile interview that I decided to comment on the hacking
because of how wrong that Donna Brazile was in so many ways. What responsibility do you think
that the Federal government should have for protecting the data of a private political operation?
What legal or regulatory responsibility do you think that the Federal government has towards the
protection of data for private civilian entities? The second question is rhetorical only to put
the first question in perspective since they are materially exactly the same thing according to
law. How difficult do you think it is to avoid exposure of incriminating or covert E-mails simply
by not having such things?
To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that
the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty
tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your
client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish.
The Clintons' venality
has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute
it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of
influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity
investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk.
HRC was elected senator from NY despite
that. That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might
be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably
bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund
under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics.
I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future.
THANKS! We better get used to Republicans, at least until they "d'oh" their way out of political
power just like the Democrats did. Democrats will never get it back on their own.
I think there was a serious lack of IT competence in the DNC playing a big role. One being with
the obvious incompetence of their cyber-security contractor and another the lack of supervision
or procedures set for this person:
I agree that the procedures and rules at the FBI could have been much better. Why the FBI agent
didn't (or maybe (s)he did) send the information up higher in the chain (all the way to the President)
is a bit of a mystery. Hacking of one of our two major parties should have been Presidential level
info, or at least cabinet level.
How about the possibility of not even having any E-mails incriminating Democrats of political
corruption? Would that have been to hard? I am not saying that they should not be corrupt, just
don't put it in an E-mail for Christ's sake.
[Interesting that Putin is the bad guy here for exposing the behavior of the DNC. Why so much
talk of Russians and so little talk of what was in those Emails?]
The 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is a collection of Democratic National Committee
(DNC) emails leaked to and subsequently published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016. This collection
included 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the DNC, the governing body of the United States'
Democratic Party.[1] The leak includes emails from seven key DNC staff members, and date from
January 2015 to May 2016.[2] The leak prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz
before the Democratic National Convention.[3] After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad
Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.[4]
WikiLeaks did not reveal its source; a self-styled hacker going by the moniker Guccifer 2.0
claimed responsibility for the attack. On July 25, 2016, the FBI announced that it would investigate
the hack[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders
and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere
apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable
remarks made over email," and that the emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment
to neutrality during the nominating process."[12] On November 6, 2016, WikiLeaks released a second
batch of DNC emails, adding 8,263 emails to its collection.[13]
On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded
Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the
presidency.[14] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin
gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee...
...Bernie Sanders' campaign
In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[45] The Washington Post reported:
"Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie
Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary-after
Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory-but they belie the national party committee's stated
neutrality in the race even at that late stage."[46]
In a May 2016 email chain, the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC
chief executive officer, Amy Dacy, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if
he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary.[46][47] In another email, Wasserman Schultz
said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president."[45]
On May 21, 2016, DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach sent an email to DNC Spokesman
Luis Miranda mentioning a controversy that ensued in December 2015 when the National Data Director
of the Sanders campaign and three subordinate staffers accessed the Clinton campaign's voter information
on the NGP VAN database.[48] (The party accused Sanders' campaign of impropriety and briefly limited
their access to the database. The Sanders campaign filed suit for breach of contract against the
DNC; they dropped the suit on April 29, 2016.)[47][49][50] Paustenbach suggested that the incident
could be used to promote a "narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together,
that his campaign was a mess." (The suggestion was rejected by the DNC.) [46][47] The Washington
Post wrote: "Paustenbach's suggestion, in that way, could be read as a defense of the committee
rather than pushing negative information about Sanders. But this is still the committee pushing
negative information about one of its candidates."...
...Financial and donor information
The New York Times wrote that the cache included "thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic
officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating
and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars
from the party's wealthy donor class. The emails capture a world where seating charts are arranged
with dollar totals in mind, where a White House celebration of gay pride is a thinly disguised
occasion for rewarding wealthy donors and where physical proximity to the president is the most
precious of currencies."[60] As is common in national politics, large party donors "were the subject
of entire dossiers, as fund-raisers tried to gauge their interests, annoyances and passions."[60]
In a series of email exchanges in April and May 2016, DNC fundraising staff discussed and compiled
a list of people (mainly donors) who might be appointed to federal boards and commissions.[61]
Center for Responsive Politics senior fellow Bob Biersack noted that this is a longstanding practice
in the United States: "Big donors have always risen to the top of lists for appointment to plum
ambassadorships and other boards and commissions around the federal landscape."[61] The White
House denied that financial support for the party was connected to board appointments, saying:
"Being a donor does not get you a role in this administration, nor does it preclude you from getting
one. We've said this for many years now and there's nothing in the emails that have been released
that contradicts that."...
That does not make Putin a good guy. I was not a fan of Snowden's either. But it is easier for
me to avoid incriminating myself in Emails than it is to get a foreign leader half way around
the world to not expose my self-incrimination if it is in his self-interest to do so and he has
the resources to do so.
We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies
or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large
private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda
and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority
constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public
entity.
So a bunch of nothing burgers about how the sausage is made. You don't say that there is actually
people in the DNC that have their own personal favorite among the primary candidates - shocking???
And campaign donations in exchange for the ability to gain influence -- almost half a chocking
as the K-Street project - and a quarter as shocking as the revelation that donating to the Clinton
foundation could NOT give the donors what they wanted from the State Department (what an absurdly
incompetent scheme of corruption - how could we let her run the gobinment).
I am sure that the Russian governments hack of the GOP didn't find anything like that - and
that's the reason they didn't make those emails public.
The general advice that you should not send anything by email that you don't want the public
to know should have been headed by all involved. Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who
had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public
consumption.
"...Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one
where she had said anything not good for public consumption."
[Now you are starting to come around.
NO, I did not find anything in the Emails shocking. None of it was a surprise at all to me.
However, it was enough for a lot of other people to be influenced in their voting (likely to stay
home and maybe it helped the Green Party get a few more votes), otherwise no one would care that
they were hacked.
Observer's comment just down thread shows that he got it. Now he was not a Hillary supporter
and more likely than not a Libertarian of sorts, but the principle here is universal, simple risk
management where there was nothing to be gained and everything to lose.
Also, going to war over the hacked Emails of any political party is probably off the table:<)
Where Hillary made a mistake was making an enemy that had one of the worlds most aggressive state
sponsored internet hacking programs (China and the US being the only ones that are more capable,
but still less aggressive and more covert).]
You have exhaustively proven that there was no crime or wrong doing committed by the DNC or Hillary.
Thanks.
You have provided evidence that politics is politics and like sausage making you don't want
to actually see it up close and personal.
Nothing here, nothing at all.
Except for Marshall McLuhan's observation that the media is the message. In this case the Russian
leaked emails to Assange lead Wikileaks calculated to dribble out over the months and weeks before
the November election to suggest there were illegalities and criminal behavior being covered up
by Hillary and the DNC at EXACTLY the same time Donald Trump is jetting around the country telling
everybody who listened that the election was rigged, Hillary is a crook, and the MSM was out to
get him.
Wow, how did you miss that and the implications derived from it?
Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has
met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.
While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with
hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges
are just propaganda and insinuations.
And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as
they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels.
Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to
implicate a wrong party.
As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.
ilsm -> im1dc... , -1
Nothing Ron says is clearing.
The e-mail thing is about safeguarding and preserving public records. The content of mishandled records is not an issue.
The public demanded to know what government does. Congress passed the federal records act. The crime has nothing to do with content.
That is one felony Comey could complain about justice whitewashing. The elements of friendly information released must never be discussed, that would make the
breeches worse. Except in closed, secure rooms with no electronic bugging devices.
"... These allegations were followed Wednesday by a press briefing in which White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that media outfits in the US, in reporting on the Democratic Party emails released by WikiLeaks, "essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence." ..."
"... Later that day, President Obama threatened to retaliate against Russia, telling National Public Radio, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will." ..."
"... The Times followed up its inflammatory article with an editorial Thursday all but accusing the president-elect of acting as a Russian agent. ..."
"... There are bitter and raging conflicts within the state, and a faction of the military-intelligence apparatus is determined that there be no retreat from an aggressive confrontation with Russia. This is connected to anger over the debacle of the CIA-led regime-change operation in Syria. ..."
"... Bound up with this internecine conflict within the ruling class, there is a concerted effort to politically bludgeon the American people into supporting further military escalation, both in the Middle East and against Russia itself. ..."
The American population is being subjected to a furious barrage of propaganda by the media and
political establishment aimed at paving the way to war.
The campaign was sharply escalated this week, beginning with Wednesday's publication of a lead
article in the New York Times . Based entirely on unnamed sources and flimsy and concocted
evidence, it was presented as definitive proof of Russia's hacking of Democratic Party emails and
waging of "cyberwar" against the United States.
These allegations were followed Wednesday by a press briefing in which White House spokesman
Josh Earnest declared that media outfits in the US, in reporting on the Democratic Party emails released
by WikiLeaks, "essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence."
On Thursday, Earnest declared that president-elect Trump had encouraged "Russia to hack his opponent
because he believed it would help his campaign." Later that day, President Obama threatened to
retaliate against Russia, telling National Public Radio, "I think there is no doubt that when any
foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and
we will."
These warmongering comments by the Obama administration were accompanied by editorials in leading
US and international newspapers denouncing Trump's accommodative stance toward Russia and clamoring
for a more aggressive response to the alleged hacking. News reports, based on unnamed intelligence
officials, breathlessly proclaim that Russian President Vladimir Putin directly ordered and oversaw
the hacking.
The Times followed up its inflammatory article with an editorial Thursday all but accusing
the president-elect of acting as a Russian agent. "There could be no more 'useful idiot,' to
use Lenin's term of art, than an American president who doesn't know he's being played by a wily
foreign power," the Times declared. The editorial further defined Russia as "one of our oldest, most
determined foreign adversaries," adding, "Kremlin meddling in the 2016 election" justifies "retaliatory
measures."
The declarations by the Times and other media outlets combine all of the noxious elements
of 1950s McCarthyism, with capitalist Russia replacing the Soviet Union: hysterical denunciation
of "wily" Russia, shameless lying and attacks on domestic opponents as spies, traitors and agents
of foreign governments.
There are bitter and raging conflicts within the state, and a faction of the military-intelligence
apparatus is determined that there be no retreat from an aggressive confrontation with Russia. This
is connected to anger over the debacle of the CIA-led regime-change operation in Syria. Trump
has packed his cabinet with generals and is planning a massive escalation of war, but he has also
indicated a preference for greater accommodation with Russia.
Bound up with this internecine conflict within the ruling class, there is a concerted effort
to politically bludgeon the American people into supporting further military escalation, both in
the Middle East and against Russia itself.
The propaganda campaign alleging Russian interference in the US election parallels a related media
blitzkrieg claiming that Syrian government troops, backed by Russia, are carrying out massacres as
they retake the Syrian city of Aleppo.
The Times ' lead editorial on Thursday, titled "Aleppo's Destroyers: Assad, Putin, Iran,"
declares: "After calling on Mr. Assad to 'step aside' in 2011, Mr. Obama was never able to make it
happen, and it may never have been in his power to make it happen, at least at a cost acceptable
to the American people." The front-page lead of Thursday's Times bemoans the fact that efforts
to whip up public support for US military intervention in Syria have "not resonated" as much as previous
propaganda campaigns.
The international press has joined in the hysteria. An op-ed in Germany's Der Spiegel bitterly
complains that "Obama sought a diplomatic, not a military solution" to the crisis in Syria. It "made
him popular, both in the United States and here [in Germany]," the piece states, but adds that such
"self-righteousness is wrong."
Such media propaganda campaigns are not new. Without exception, they have preceded every bloody
military adventure: the attempts to blame Afghanistan for the September 11 terrorist attacks in the
run-up to that country's invasion in 2001; the lying claims about "weapons of mass destruction" before
the 2003 invasion of Iraq; and the reports of an imminent massacre of civilians in Benghazi that
preceded the US bombing and destruction of Libya in 2011.
The difference now, however, is that this campaign is directed not at a virtually defenseless
and impoverished former colony, but at Russia, the world's second-ranked nuclear power. None of the
figures carrying out this campaign care to explain how a war against Russia should be fought, how
many people will die, and how such a war could avoid a nuclear exchange leading to the destruction
of human civilization.
Behind the banner headlines and vituperative editorials, real steps are being taken to prepare
for warfare on a scale not seen for 60 years. Earlier this year, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark
A. Milley told the Association of the United States Army that the military must prepare for wars
against great powers, which will be "very highly lethal, unlike anything our Army has experienced
since World War II."
The campaign that has developed over the past two weeks makes clear what the policy of a Clinton
administration would have been. The Democratic Party and its allied media outlets have rooted their
opposition to Trump not on the basis of his losing the popular vote by nearly three million ballots,
or that he is appointing a cabinet dominated by right-wing, reactionary billionaires, bankers, business
executives and generals, but on the charge that he is "soft" on Russia. That is, the Democratic Party
has managed to attack Trump from the right.
Whatever the outcome of the conflict within the state, the American ruling class is preparing
for war. The dissolution of the USSR 25 years ago was greeted with enraptured declarations of an
era of perpetual peace, in which a world under the unrivaled hegemony of the United States would
be free of the wars that plagued mankind in the 20th century. Now, after a quarter century of bloody
regional conflicts, the blood-curdling declarations of the press make it clear that a new world war
is in the making.
Among broad sections of workers and young people, there is deep skepticism toward government
lies and hostility to war. However, this opposition can find no reflection within any faction of
the political establishment. The building of a new anti-war movement, based on the international
unity of the working class in opposition to capitalism and all the political parties of the ruling
class, is the urgent task.
Last week we reported that the State of Georgia had traced an attempted break-in to its voter
registration database to none other than the famous Russian government agency, the Department of
Homeland Security.
Now it has been revealed that Kentucky and West Virginia "have confirmed suspected cyberattacks
linked to the same U.S. Department of Homeland Security IP address as last month's massive attack
in Georgia". There must be some way to blame Moscow:
While there could be an "innocent" explanation for such attacks (testing network security, for
example), the Department of Homeland Security did not inform any of these states - before or
after the attacks - that they had been conducted, for security-checking purposes or otherwise. In
other words: These states still don't know why DHS targeted, and they're still waiting for an
answer:
In the past week, the Georgia Secretary of State's Office has confirmed 10 separate
cyberattacks on its network over the past 10 months that were traced back to DHS addresses.
"We're being told something that they think they have it figured out, yet nobody's really
showed us how this happened," Kemp said. "We need to know."
He says the new information from the two other states presents even more reason to be
concerned.
"So now this just raises more questions that haven't been answered about this and continues to
raise the alarms and concern that I have," Kemp said.
Georgia's Secretary of State says he has already sent an appeal to the incoming Trump
administration, asking for assistance in resolving this bizarre string of cyber attacks.
"... Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website www.danielleryan.net. ..."
According to the anonymous sources inside the anonymous US intelligence agency,
Putin's objectives were multifaceted, but the whole thing began as a "vendetta"
against Hillary Clinton because she said some mean things about him a few
times. Putin is also an "immature 12 year-old child," a former US official with
links to the defense industry, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed
(with high confidence).
The high level, anonymous and completely trustworthy sources also told a major
US news agency that Putin himself had piloted a specially-designed Russian spy
plane across the Atlantic to personally direct the still-ongoing hacking
operations from the air.
via GIPHY
Satellite images seen by a separate anonymous NASA whistleblower are believed
to show Putin in the cockpit of the spy plane alongside his co-pilot Boris, a
lifelike robotic bear which has been under secret development in the depths of
Siberia and has been programmed to attack Putin's enemies on command using a
variety of lethal methods.
The NASA whistleblower did not provide journalists with photographic evidence,
but the editors had a chat about it in their morning meeting and concluded that
it's probably still true.
In fact, the American news agency could not verify any of the claims from the
officials who commented for the story, but given that their sources used the
term "high confidence" they took this to mean the evidence must be "nearly
incontrovertible" and relayed the information to the public with this
implication. An understandable decision, since, as we all know, only 100
percent factual information is ever released by anonymous intelligence
officials.
Okay, let's rewind.
Obviously that bit about the bear and the plane was
fake news. And maybe a few other bits, too. But it all demonstrates a point.
I've provided you with about the same amount of evidence as NBC has in its
story this week
claiming Putin personally rigged
the US election:
I made some allegations, I cited anonymous sources and then I conveyed it to
you readers as "nearly incontrovertible" and suggested no further digging or
investigation, or even a bit of healthy skepticism, was necessary.
Journalism is dying
There was a time when journalists needed more than 'maybes' and 'probablys'
before deciding what their sources told them was "incontrovertible" and
delivering half-baked conspiracy theories to the public. That time has
apparently long gone.
Imagine for a moment that RT published a story about, oh, let's say Barack
Obama personally hacking into Putin's computer. Now imagine the only evidence
RT provided was "anonymous FSB officials" and told its readers the story was
therefore practically indisputable because these anonymous sources were
"confident" in the legitimacy of their secret evidence. Imagine the laughs that
would get from sneering Western journalists. Well, that's pretty much exactly
what NBC did. And they're not alone. The
Washington Post
has been at
it too,
reporting on a "secret" CIA assessment that Russia worked to get Donald
Trump elected, quoting anonymous "top officials" and like NBC, providing no
evidence.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but for something to be presented to the
public as indisputable fact, there must be evidence made available to back it
up. Neither the CIA or the FBI have provided any such evidence to the public.
Perhaps the saddest thing though is having to acknowledge that all our debates
over fake news and real news really don't matter because the very people we are
told to trust are the people who will most adeptly use the public's concerns
over fake news to manipulate them. The CIA, for example, is hardly known for
its long history of telling the truth. Its employees are literally trained in
the art of deception and disinformation. They are hardly averse to creating a
bit of fake news or making up 'evidence' where needed. Anything they say or do
can be forgiven once someone utters the words "national security".
NBC's story claimed Putin not only wanted to embarrass Clinton with the DNC
leaks, but to highlight corruption in the American political system; the emails
showing, for example, how the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign to ensure
Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, would be the Democratic nominee.
Now, what better way to encourage people to ignore the corruption in
the system than to focus their attention on the idea that Putin is the one who
told them about it? Are people really reading these stories and convincing
themselves that the CIA is the most credible source of public information on
what the Russians are doing?
Clinton's long-shot
We've been hearing about Russian hacking for months, long before the election
results in November, so why the sudden confidence in all this new and secret
evidence? Why the new assertions that Putin himself directed the hacking? Look
at your calendar. The Electoral College votes on Monday and it may be Clinton's
last hope. It's a long shot, but in true Clinton character, she won't go down
without a fight to the last gasp. Her best hope is to convince the Electoral
College that Trump's win was influenced by a foreign power, is therefore
illegitimate and that national security will be at stake if he takes office.
Amazingly, in the midst of all this, while Clinton's camp is still trying to
get her elected through back-door tactics, Obama has pretty much called the
election results
legitimate .
Members of the Electoral College are expected to vote the way their states
voted, but they are not required to. If Clinton can get enough members to flip
their votes, Trump is deprived of the 270 votes he needs to become president.
That's what this is really all about - and the media is serving as Clinton's
willing accomplice.
Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst.
She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary.
Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post,
New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also
works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or
at her website www.danielleryan.net.
"... this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified. ..."
"... [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before. ..."
"... Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz. ..."
"... It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts. ..."
"... "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed. ..."
"... With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press? ..."
"... I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire. ..."
"... The whole thing was silly the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened. ..."
this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election
by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p",
which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified.
[Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the
comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come
across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never
really expressed it before.
Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They
intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content
can just be handed over to the fuzz.
I don't think I've looked at my yahoo account in 8-10 years and I didn't use their email; just
had an address. I don't remember my user name or password. I did get an email from them (to my
not-yahoo address) advising of the breach.
I was amazed as I watched a local am news show in Pittsburgh recommend adding your cell phone
number in addition to changing your password. Yeah, that's a great idea, maybe my ss# would provide
even more security.
I use yahoo email. Why should I move? As I understood the breach it was primarily a breach
of the personal information used to establish the account. I've already changed my password -
did it a couple of days after the breach was reported. I had a security clearance with DoD which
requires disclosure of a lot more personal information than yahoo had. The DoD data has been breached
twice from two separate servers.
As far as reading my emails - they may prove useful for phishing but that's about all. I'm
not sure what might be needed for phishing beyond a name and email address - easily obtained from
many sources I have no control over.
So - what am I vulnerable to by remaining at yahoo that I'm not already exposed to on a more
secure server?
Yeah, it isn't like Mr. 'We go high' is going to admit our relationship has declined because
we have underhandedly tried to isolate and knee cap them for pretty much his entire administration.
Are you referring to Obama's press conference? If so, I am glad he didn't make a big deal out
of the Russian hacking allegations - as in it didn't sound like he planned a retaliation for the
fictional event and its fictional consequences. He rose slightly in stature in my eyes - he's
almost as tall as a short flea.
With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting
the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom
mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have
the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press?
Why is a lameduck
messing with the Chinese in the South China sea? What is the point of all the "fake" news hogwash?
Is it related to Obama's expression of concern about the safety of the Internet? I can't shake
the feeling that something is going on below the surface of these murky waters.
I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference
and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so
they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire.
He did
respond at one point to a reporter that the hacks from Russia were to the DNC and Podesta but
funny how he didn't say HRC emails. Be it as it may, I think what was behind it was HRC really
trying to impress all her contributors that Russia really did do her in, see Obama said so, since
she must be in hot water over all the money she has collected from foreign governments for pay
to play and her donors.
The whole thing was silly the buildup to this press conference and then
how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind
the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get
into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is
the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then
nothing happened.
Unfortunately the nightly news is focusing on Obama says Russia hacked the DNC and had it in
for Clinton!!! He warned them to stay out of the vote! There will be consequences! Russia demands
the evidence and then a story about the evidence. (This one might have a few smarter people going
"huh, that's it?!?!")
I do like the some private some public on that consequences and retaliation thing. You either
have to laugh or throw up about the faux I've got this and the real self-righteousness. Especially
since it is supposedly to remind people we can do it to you. Is there anyone left outside of America
who doesn't think they already do do it to anyone Uncle Sam doesn't want in office and even some
they do? Mind you I'm not sure how many harried people watching the news are actually going to
laugh at that one because they don't know how how much we meddle.
"... Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times. ..."
"... Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC. ..."
"... Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame. ..."
"... It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future. ..."
"... Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism. ..."
"... Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture. ..."
"... It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results. ..."
"... All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves. ..."
"... Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?! ..."
"... Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault. ..."
"... The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked. ..."
"... The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.) ..."
"... The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance. ..."
"... The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists. ..."
"... The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion. ..."
"... Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message. ..."
"... It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did. ..."
"... The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much? ..."
[ I find it terrifying, simply terrifying, to refer to people as "useful idiots" after all
the personal destruction that has followed when the expression was specifically used in the past.
To me, using such an expression is an honored economist intent on becoming Joseph McCarthy.
]
To demean a person as though the person were a communist or a fool of communists or the like,
with all the personal harm that has historically brought in this country, is cruel beyond my understanding
or imagining.
Well, not really. For example he referred to "the close relationship between Wikileaks and Russian
intelligence." But Wikileaks is a channel. They don't seek out material. They rely on people to
bring material to them. They supposedly make an effort to verify that the material is not a forgery,
but aside from that what they release is what people bring to them. Incidentally, like so many
people you seem to not care whether the material is accurate or not -- Podesta and the DNC have
not claimed that any of the emails are different from what they sent.
ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and
unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be
in danger....
Yup, like the other elections, the bases stayed solvent and current events factored into the turnout
and voting patterns which spurred the independent vote.
When people were claiming Clinton was going to win big, I thought no Republican and Democratic
voters are going to pull the lever like a trained monkey as usual. Only difference in this election
was Hillary's huge negatives due entirely by her and Bill Clinton's support for moving manufacturing
jobs to Mexico and China in the 90s.
To Understand Trump, Learn Russian http://nyti.ms/2hLcrB1
NYT - Andrew Rosenthal - December 15
The Russian language has two words for truth - a linguistic quirk that seems relevant to our
current political climate, especially because of all the disturbing ties between the newly elected
president and the Kremlin.
The word for truth in Russian that most Americans know is "pravda" - the truth that seems evident
on the surface. It's subjective and infinitely malleable, which is why the Soviet Communists called
their party newspaper "Pravda." Despots, autocrats and other cynical politicians are adept at
manipulating pravda to their own ends.
But the real truth, the underlying, cosmic, unshakable truth of things is called "istina" in
Russian. You can fiddle with the pravda all you want, but you can't change the istina.
For the Trump team, the pravda of the 2016 election is that not all Trump voters are explicitly
racist. But the istina of the 2016 campaign is that Trump's base was heavily dependent on racists
and xenophobes, Trump basked in and stoked their anger and hatred, and all those who voted for
him cast a ballot for a man they knew to be a racist, sexist xenophobe. That was an act of racism.
Trump's team took to Twitter with lightning speed recently to sneer at the conclusion by all
17 intelligence agencies that the Kremlin hacked Democratic Party emails for the specific purpose
of helping Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton. Trump said the intelligence agencies got it wrong
about Iraq, and that someone else could have been responsible for the hack and that the Democrats
were just finding another excuse for losing.
The istina of this mess is that powerful evidence suggests that the Russians set out to interfere
in American politics, and that Trump, with his rejection of Western European alliances and embrace
of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, was their chosen candidate.
The pravda of Trump's selection of Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil, as secretary of state
is that by choosing an oil baron who has made billions for his company by collaborating with Russia,
Trump will make American foreign policy beholden to American corporate interests.
That's bad enough, but the istina is far worse. For one thing, American foreign policy has
been in thrall to American corporate interests since, well, since there were American corporations.
Just look at the mess this country created in Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and
the Middle East to serve American companies.
Yes, Tillerson has ignored American interests repeatedly, including in Russia and Iraq, and
has been trying to remove sanctions imposed after Russia's seizure of Crimea because they interfered
with one of his many business deals. But take him out of the equation in the Trump cabinet and
nothing changes. Trump has made it plain, with every action he takes, that he is going to put
every facet of policy, domestic and foreign, at the service of corporate America. The istina here
is that Tillerson is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.
The pravda is that Trump was right in saying that the intelligence agencies got it wrong about
Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.
But the istina is that Trump's contempt for the intelligence services is profound and dangerous.
He's not getting daily intelligence briefings anymore, apparently because they are just too dull
to hold his attention.
And now we know that Condoleezza Rice was instrumental in bringing Tillerson to Trump's attention.
As national security adviser and then secretary of state for president George W. Bush, Rice was
not just wrong about Iraq, she helped fabricate the story that Hussein had nuclear weapons.
Trump and Tillerson clearly think they are a match for the wily and infinitely dangerous Putin,
but as they move foward with their plan to collaborate with Russia instead of opposing its imperialist
tendencies, they might keep in mind another Russian saying, this one from Lenin.
"There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience," he wrote. "A scoundrel may be
of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."
Putin has that philosophy hard-wired into his political soul. When it comes to using scoundrels
to get what he wants, he is a professional, and Trump is only an amateur. That is the istina of
the matter.
If nothing else, Russia - with a notably un-free press - has shrewdly used our own 'free press'
against US.
RUSSIA'S UNFREE PRESS
The Boston Globe - Marshall Goldman - January 29, 2001
AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DEBATES ITS POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS SHOULD BE
ONE OF ITS MAJOR CONCERNS. UNDER PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN THE PRESS IS FREE ONLY AS LONG AS IT
DOES NOT CRITICIZE PUTIN OR HIS POLICIES. WHEN NTV, THE TELEVISION NETWORK OF THE MEDIA GIANT
MEDIA MOST, REFUSED TO PULL ITS PUNCHES, MEDIA MOST'S OWNER, VLADIMIR GUSINSKY, FOUND HIMSELF
IN JAIL, AND GAZPROM, A COMPANY DOMINATED BY THE STATE, BEGAN TO CALL IN LOANS TO MEDIA MOST.
Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people. They
crave a strong and forceful leader; his KGB past and conditioned KGB responses are just what they
seem to want after what many regard as the social, political, and economic chaos of the last decade.
But what to the Russians is law and order (the "dictatorship of the law," as Putin has so accurately
put it) looks more and more like an old Soviet clampdown to many Western observers.
There is no complaint about Putin's promises. He tells everyone he wants freedom of the press.
But in the context of his KGB heritage, his notion of freedom of the press is something very different.
In an interview with the Toronto Globe and Mail, he said that that press freedom excludes the
"hooliganism" or "uncivilized" reporting he has to deal with in Moscow. By that he means criticism,
especially of his conduct of the war in Chechnya, his belated response to the sinking of the Kursk,
and the heavy-handed way in which he has pushed aside candidates for governor in regional elections
if they are not to Putin's liking.
He does not take well to criticism. When asked by the relatives of those lost in the Kursk
why he seemed so unresponsive, Putin tried to shift the blame for the disaster onto the media
barons, or at least those who had criticized him. They were the ones, he insisted, who had pressed
for reduced funding for the Navy while they were building villas in Spain and France. As for their
criticism of his behavior, They lie! They lie! They lie!
Our Western press has provided good coverage of the dogged way Putin and his aides have tried
to muscle Gusinsky out of the Media Most press conglomerate he created. But those on the Putin
enemies list now include even Boris Berezovsky, originally one of Putin's most enthusiastic promoters
who after the sinking of the Kursk also became a critic and thus an opponent.
Gusinsky would have a hard time winning a merit badge for trustworthiness (Berezovsky shouldn't
even apply), but in the late Yeltsin and Putin years, Gusinsky has earned enormous credit for
his consistently objective news coverage, including a spotlight on malfeasance at the very top.
More than that, he has supported his programmers when they have subjected Yeltsin and now Putin
to bitter satire on Kukly, his Sunday evening prime-time puppet show.
What we hear less of, though, is what is happening to individual reporters, especially those
engaged in investigative work. Almost monthly now there are cases of violence and intimidation.
Among those brutalized since Putin assumed power are a reporter for Radio Liberty who dared to
write negative reports about the Russian Army's role in Chechnia and four reporters for Novaya
Gazeta. Two of them were investigating misdeeds by the FSB (today's equivalent of the KGB), including
the possibility that it rather than Chechins had blown up a series of apartment buildings. Another
was pursuing reports of money-laundering by Yeltsin family members and senior staff in Switzerland.
Although these journalists were very much in the public eye, they were all physically assaulted.
Those working for provincial papers labor under even more pressure with less visibility. There
are numerous instances where regional bosses such as the governor of Vladivostok operate as little
dictators, and as a growing number of journalists have discovered, challenges are met with threats,
physical intimidation, and, if need be, murder.
True, freedom of the press in Russia is still less than 15 years old, and not all the country's
journalists or their bosses have always used that freedom responsibly. During the 1996 election
campaign, for example, the media owners, including Gusinsky conspired to denigrate or ignore every
viable candidate other than Yeltsin. But attempts to muffle if not silence criticism have multiplied
since Putin and his fellow KGB veterans have come to power. Criticism from any source, be it an
individual journalist or a corporate entity, invites retaliation.
When Media Most persisted in its criticism, Putin sat by approvingly as his subordinates sent
in masked and armed tax police and prosecutors. When that didn't work, they jailed Gusinsky on
charges that were later dropped, although they are seeking to extradite and jail him again. along
with his treasurer, on a new set of charges. Yesterday the prosecutor general summoned Tatyana
Mitkova, the anchor of NTV's evening news program, for questioning. Putin's aides are also doing
all they can to prevent Gusinsky from refinancing his debt-ridden operation with Ted Turner or
anyone else in or outside of the country.
According to one report, Putin told one official, You deal with the shares, debts, and management
and I will deal with the journalists. His goal simply is to end to independent TV coverage in
Russia. ...
"Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people"
Exactly; the majority of people are so stupid and/or lazy that they cannot be bothered understanding
what is going on; and how their hard won democracy is being subjugated. But thank God that is
in Russia not here in the US - right?
"Pravda" is etymologically derived from "prav-" which means "right" (as opposed to "left", other
connotations are "proper", "correct", "rightful", also legal right). It designates the social-construct
aspect of "righteousness/truthfulness/correctness" as opposed to "objective reality" (conceptually
independent of social standards, in reality anything but). In formal logic, "istina" is used to
designate truth. Logical falsity is designated a "lie".
It is a feature common to most European languages that rightfulness, righteousness, correctness,
and legal rights are identified with the designation for the right side. "Sinister" is Latin for
"left".
If you believe 911 was a Zionist conspiracy, so where the Paris attacks of November 2015, when
Trump was failing in the polls as the race was moving toward as you would expect, toward other
candidates. After the Paris attacks, his numbers reaccelerated.
If "ZOG" created the "false flag" of the Paris attacks to start a anti-Muslim fervor, they
succeeded, much like 911. Bastille day attacks were likewise, a false flag. This is not new, this
goes back to when the aristocracy merged with the merchant caste, creating the "bourgeois". They
have been running a parallel government in the shadows to effect what is seen.
There used to be something called Usenet News, where at the protocol level reader software could
fetch meta data (headers containing author, (stated) origin, title, etc.) independently from comment
bodies. This was largely owed to limited download bandwidth. Basically all readers had "kill files"
i.e. filters where one could configure that comments with certain header parameters should not
be downloaded, or even hidden.
The main application was that the reader would download comments in the background when headers
were already shown, or on demand when you open a comment.
Now you get the whole thing (or in units of 100) by the megabyte.
A major problem is signal extraction out of the massive amounts of noise generated by the media,
social media, parties, and pundits.
It's easy enough to highlight this thread of information here, but in real time people are
being bombarded by so many other stories.
In particular, the Clinton Foundation was also regularly being highlighted for its questionable
ties to foreign influence. And HRC's extravagant ties to Wall St. And so much more.
The media's job was to sell Trump and denounce Clinton. The mistake a lot of people make is thinking
the global elite are the "status quo". They are not. They are generally the ones that break the
status quo more often than not.
The bulk of them wanted Trump/Republican President and made damn sure it was President. Buffering
the campaign against criticism while overly focusing on Clinton's "crap". It took away from the
issues which of course would have low key'd the election.
Not much bullying has to be applied when there are "economic incentives". The media attention
economy and ratings system thrive on controversy and emotional engagement. This was known a century
ago as "only bad news is good news". As long as I have lived, the non-commercial media not subject
(or not as much) to these dynamics have always been perceived as dry and boring.
I heard from a number of people that they followed the campaign "coverage" (in particular Trump)
as gossip/entertainment, and those were people who had no sympathies for him. And even media coverage
by outlets generally critical of Trump's unbelievable scandals and outrageous performances catered
to this sentiment.
First, let me disclose that I detest TRUMP and that the Russian meddling has me deeply concerned.
Yet...
We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence. We do not know whether
it likely had *material* influence that could have reasonably led to a swing state(s) going to
TRUMP that otherwise would have gone to HRC.
Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across
as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which
is a big shame.
It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little
information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this
was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy
beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians
exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign
governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated
means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in
the future.
It is quite clear that the Russians intervened on Trump's behalf and that this intervention had
an impact. The problem is that we cannot actually quantify that impact.
"We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence."
Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with
celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism.
Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first
place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs,
etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities
was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture.
But this is how influence is exerted - by using the dynamics of the adversary's/targets organization
as an amplifier. Hierarchical organizations are approached through their management or oversight
bodies, social networks through key influencers, etc.
I see this so much and it's so right wing cheap: I hate Trump, but assertions that Russia intervened
are unproven.
First, Trump openly invited Russia to hack DNC emails. That is on its face treason and sedition.
It's freaking on video. If HRC did that there would be calls of the right for her execution.
Second, a NYT story showed that the FBI knew about the hacking but did not alert the DNC properly
- they didn't even show up, they sent a note to a help desk.
This was a serious national security breach that was not addressed properly. This is criminal
negligence.
This was a hacked election by collusion of the FBI and the Russian hackers and it totally discredits
the FBI as it throwed out chum and then denied at the last minute. Now the CIA comes in and says
PUTIN, Trump's bff, was directly involved in manipulating the timetable that the hacked emails
were released in drip drip form to cater to the media - creating story after story about emails.
It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how
it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway.
"It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how
it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway."
It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want.
That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce
optimal results.
All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice --
incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people,
"We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small
'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves.
Trump and his gang will be deeply grateful if the left follows Krugman's "wisdom", and clings
to his ever-changing excuses. (I thought it was the evil Greens who deprived Clinton of her due?)
Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a
flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments
today!?!
"On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a "useful idiot" serving Russian
interests." I think that is beyond the pale. Yes, I realize that Adolph Hitler was democratically
elected. I agree that Trump seems like a scary monster under the bed. That doesn't mean we have
too pee our pants, Paul. He's a bully, tough guy, maybe, the kind of kid that tortured you before
you kicked the shit out of them with your brilliance. That's not what is needed now.
What really is needed, is a watchdog, like Dean Baker, that alerts we dolts of pending bills and
their ramifications. The ship of neo-liberal trade bullshit has sailed. Hell, you don't believe
it yourself, you've said as much. Be gracious, and tell the truth. We can handle it.
The experience of voting for the Hill was painful, vs Donald Trump.
The Hill seemed like the least likely aristocrat, given two choices, to finish off all government
focus on the folks that actually built this society. Two Titans of Hubris, Hillary vs Donald,
each ridiculous in the concept of representing the interests of the common man.
At the end of the day. the American people decided that the struggle with the unknown monster
Donald was worth deposing the great deplorable, Clinton.
The real argument is whether the correct plan of action is the way of FDR, or the way of the industrialists,
the Waltons, the Kochs, the Trumps, the Bushes and the outright cowards like the Cheneys and the
Clintons, people that never spent a day defending this country in combat. What do they call it,
the Commander in Chief.
My father was awarded a silver and a bronze star for his efforts in battle during WW2. He was
shot in the face while driving a tank destroyer by a German sniper in a place called Schmitten
Germany.
He told me once, that he looked over at the guy next to him on the plane to the hospital in
England, and his intestines were splayed on his chest. It was awful.
What was he fighting for ? Freedom, America. Then the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who spent the
war stateside began the real war, garnering the wealth of the nation to the entitled like him.
Ronald Reagan was a life guard.
Anthony Weiner
Podesta
Biden (for not running)
Tim Kaine (for accepting the nomination instead of deferring to a latino)
CNN and other TV news media (for giving trump so much coverage- even an empty podium)
Donna Brazile
etc.
The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the
Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused
to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.)
The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to
remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned,
and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until
he had no real chance.
The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing
to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic
elite and their apologists.
The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought.
For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody
else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion.
The wealthy brought this on. For 230 years they have, essentially run this country. They are
too stupid to be satisfied with enough, but always want more.
The economics profession brought this on, by excusing treasonous behavior as efficient, and
failing to understand the underlying principles of their profession, and the limits of their understanding.
(They don't even know what money is, or how a trade deficit destroys productive capacity, and
thus the very ability of a nation to pay back the debts it incurs.)
The people brought this on, by neglecting their duty to be informed, to be educated, and to
be thoughtful.
Anybody else care for their share of blame? I myself deserve some, but for reasons I cannot
say.
What amazes me now is, the bird having shown its feathers, there is no howl of outrage from
the people who voted for him. Do they imagine that the Plutocrats who will soon monopolize the
White House will take their interests to heart?
As far as I can tell, not one person of 'the people' has been appointed to his cabinet. Not
one. But the oppressed masses who turned to Mr Trump seem to be OK with this.
I can only wonder, how much crap will have to be rubbed in their faces, before they awaken to
the taste of what it is?
Eric377 : , -1
Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats
last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly
combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third
party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the
message.
It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified
Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for
a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing?
Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the
heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate
to win this thing than we Democrats did.
The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer
but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility
for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy
much?
This has made me cynical. I used to think that at least *some* members of the US political
elite had the best interests of ordinary households in mind, but now I see that it's just ego
vs. ego, whatever the party.
As for democracy being on the edge: I believe Adam Smith over Krugman: "there is a lot of ruin
in a nation". It takes more than this to overturn an entrenched institution.
I think American democracy will survive a decade of authoritarianism, and if it does not, then
H. L. Mencken said it best: "The American people know what they want, and they deserve to get
it -- good and hard."
The agitprop out of the White House isn't working these days, thanks to the advent of fake
news of course. Following weeks of hysteria, following Donald J. Trump's triumphant victory of
Hillary Clinton and Obama's legacy, Obama took to the podium for one last time to divide
Americans -- this time invoking the revered late President Ronald Reagan -- saying he'd be
'rolling over in his grave' now had he known that over a third of republicans approve of Putin in
some random poll.
If Obama truly wants to know why Americans are willing to accept the words of Putin,
undoubtedly a strong man leader, over his -- he should take a look in the mirror and then gander
over to his computer to re-read all of the Wikileaks from John Podesta's email that Putin so
graciously made available to us all. They speak volumes about the corruptness and the rot
permeating in our capitol. Even without the emails, we see the neocon strategy of persistent war
and deceit hollowing out this nation -- devouring its resources, emptying its treasury, and there
is nothing redeeming about it.
During the press conference, Obama provided his media with incontrovertible evidence that
Russia was behind the WikiLeaks, saying 'not much happens in Russia without Putin's approval.'
Russia has a land mass of 6,592,800 sq miles and Putin controls every single inch of it. This is
retard level thinking.
Moreover, Obama says he told Putin to 'cut it out' when he last saw him in China, warning him
of serious consequences. Luckily for us, Putin got scared and ceased all further hackings.
However, the damage had already been done and the Wikileaks released.
I suppose this type of lazy thinking appeals to a certain subset of America, else why would he
make such infantile statements?
The Divider in Chief, one last time reminding himself and the press that XENOPHOBIA against
Russians is good. The Russians are a useless sort, who produce nothing of interest, a very small
and weak country, only capable of wiping out the entirety of America 10x over via very large
nuclear detonations. Oh, and you pesky republicans love Putin because you're sooo political.
This is what some might call 'idiotic diplomacy', mocking and deriding a rival nation to the
point of war, a war that could exterminate life on planet earth for at least a millennia. Genius.
Assuming these "rogue-Electors" from the Electoral College
get a briefing on the "Russian election-hack" from the CIA
, and assuming the
Electors have a few working brain cells, and assuming they care, here are the top 11
questions they should ask the CIA presenter.
Questions One through Three (repeated with enthusiasm and fervor):
Are you just
going to feed us generalities and tell us you can't detail specifics because that would
compromise your methods and personnel? We can read the generalities in the Washington
Post, whose owner, Jeff Bezos, chief honcho at Amazon, has a $600 million contract with
the CIA to provide cloud computing services, so he and the Post and the CIA are in bed
together.
Question Four:
We need a precise
distinction here. How did "Russia hacked the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails
and fed the emails to WikiLeaks who released them" suddenly morph into "Russia hacked
the election vote"?
Question Five:
The security systems
that protected the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails were so feeble a child could
have gotten past them in a few minutes. Why should we assume high-level Russian agents
were involved?
Question Six:
Not only does the CIA
have a history of lying to the American people, lying is part of your job description.
Why should we believe you? Take your time. We can have food brought in.
Question Seven:
We're getting the
feeling you're talking down to us as if we're the peasants and you're the feudal barons.
Why is that? Do you work for us, or do we work for you? Once upon a time, before you
went to work for the Agency, were you like us, or were you always arrogant and
dismissive?
Question Eight:
Let's put aside for a
moment the question of who leaked all those emails. What about the substance and content
of the emails? Was all that forged or was it real? If you claim there was forgery, prove
it. Put a dozen emails up on that big screen and take us through them, piece by piece,
and show us where and how the forgery occurred. By the way, why didn't you allow us to
bring several former NSA analysts into this briefing? Are we living in the US or the
USSR?
Question Nine:
Are you personally a
computer expert, sir? Or are you merely relaying what someone else at the CIA told you?
Would you spell your name for us again? What is your job description at the Agency? Do
you work in public information? Are you tasked with "being convincing"?
Question Ten:
Do you think we're
completely stupid?
Question Eleven:
Let's all let our
hair down, okay? Forget facts and specifics. Of course we want to overthrow the election
and install Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. So do you. We're on the same team. But
we need you to give us something, anything. So far, this briefing is embarrassing. Once
we get out of here, we want to tell a few persuasive lies. Give us a Russian name, any
name. Or a location in Russia we can use. The brand name of a Russian vodka. Caviar.
Something that sounds Russian. Make up a code with letters and numbers. Help us out. How
about the name of an American who who's actually a Russian spy? You could shoot him
later today in a "gun battle at a shopping mall." That would work.
Good luck.
(To read about Jon's mega-collection,
Power
Outside The Matrix
,
click here
.)
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses,
breaking news and videos (
Click
for details ).
Contributed by Jon Rappoport of
No More Fake News .
The author of an explosive collection,
THE
MATRIX REVEALED , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the
29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an
investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health
for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines
in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics,
health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
Podesta essentially gave up his email due to committed by him blunder: sending his password to the
attacker. As such it was far from high-end hacking, which can be attributed to intelligence
agencies. It is more like a regular, primitive phishing expedition
which became successful due to Podesta blunder. So this is not hacking but phishing
expedition... That makes big difference.
Notable quotes:
"... The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that? ..."
"... If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft? ..."
"... Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate? ..."
"... Numerous reports ascribe the hacks to hacking groups known as APT 28 or "Fancy Bear" and APT 29 or "Cozy Bear." But these groups had already been accused of nefarious actions on behalf of Russian intelligence prior to the hacks under discussion. Why would the Kremlin and its intelligence agencies select well-known groups to conduct a regime-change operation on the most powerful country on earth? ..."
"... The joint statement issued by the DNI and DHS on October 7 2016 confirmed that US intelligence had no evidence of official Russian involvement in the leak of hacked documents to Wikileaks, etc, saying only that the leaks were " consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." Has the US acquired any evidence whatsoever since that time regarding Russian involvement in the leaks? ..."
It is being reported that John Podesta, Chairman of the defeated $1.2 billion Clinton presidential
campaign, is supporting the call by various officials, including at least forty Electors, that the
members of the Electoral College be given a classified intelligence briefing on the alleged Russian
hacking before the College votes on December 19.
In the event such a briefing comes to pass, it might be helpful if the Electors had some informed
questions to ask the CIA
The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian,
in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence
do that?
If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian
email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned server?
Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft?
Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona
and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished
by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question,
clearly indicate?
Numerous reports ascribe the hacks to hacking groups known as APT 28 or "Fancy Bear" and
APT 29 or "Cozy Bear." But these groups had already been accused of nefarious actions on
behalf of Russian intelligence prior to the hacks under discussion. Why would the Kremlin
and its intelligence agencies select well-known groups to conduct a regime-change operation on
the most powerful country on earth?
It has been reported in the New York Times , without attribution, that U.S. intelligence
has identified specific G.R.U. officials who directed the hacking. Is this true, and if so, please
provide details (Witness should be sworn)
The joint statement issued by the DNI and DHS on October 7 2016 confirmed that US intelligence
had no evidence of official Russian involvement in the leak of hacked documents to Wikileaks,
etc, saying only that the leaks were " consistent with the methods and motivations
of Russian-directed efforts." Has the US acquired any evidence whatsoever since that time
regarding Russian involvement in the leaks?
Since the most effective initiative in tipping the election to Donald Trump was the intervention
of FBI Director Comey, are you investigating any possible connections he might have to Russian
intelligence and Vladimir Putin?
by
Gary Leupp
Mainstream TV news anchors including MSNBC's Chris Hayes are reporting as fact---with
fuming indignation---that Russia (and specifically Vladimir Putin) not only sought to
influence the U.S. election (and---gosh!---promote "doubt" about the whole legitimacy
of the U.S. electoral system) but to throw the vote to Donald Trump.
The main
accusation is that the DNC and Podesta emails leaked through Wikileaks were provided
by state-backed Russian hackers (while they did not leak material hacked from the
Republicans). I have my doubts on this. Former U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan and
torture whistle-blower Craig Murray, a friend of Julian Assange, has stated that the
DNC emails were leaked by a DNC insider whose identity he knows. The person, Murray
contends, handed the material over to him, in a D.C. park. I have met Murray, admire
and am inclined to believe him. (I just heard now that John Bolton, of all people,
has also opined this was an inside job.)
Putin Lashes Out At Obama: "Show Some Proof Or Shut Up"
Tyler Durden
Dec 16, 2016 9:09 AM
0
SHARES
Putin has had enough of the relentless barrage of US accusations that he, personally,
"hacked the US presidential election."
The Russian president's spokesman, Dmitry
Peskov, said on Friday that the US must either stop accusing Russia of meddling in its
elections or prove it. Peskov said it was "indecent" of the United States to
"groundlessly" accuse Russia of intervention in its elections.
"You need to either stop talking about it, or finally show some kind of
proof. Otherwise it just looks very indecent
", Peskov told Reporters in Tokyo
where Putin is meeting with Japan PM Abe, responding to the latest accusations that
Russia was responsible for hacker attacks.
Peskov also warned that Obama's threat to "retaliate" to the alleged Russian hack is
"against both American and international law", hinting at open-ended escalation should
Obama take the podium today at 2:15pm to officially launch cyberwar against Russia.
Previously, on Thursday, Peskov told the AP the report was "
laughable
nonsense
", while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused "Western
media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of various power groups", and added that
"it's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova said. "the general
public nowadays can distinguish the truth. It's the mass media that is manipulating
themselves."
Meanwhile, on Friday Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister told state television
network, Russia 24, he was "dumbstruck" by the NBC report which alleges that Russian
President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in an election hack.
The report cited U.S. intelligence officials that now believe with a "high level of
confidence" that Putin became personally involved in a secret campaign to influence the
outcome of the U.S. presidential election.
"I think this is just silly, and the
futility of the attempt to convince somebody of this is absolutely obvious,"
Lavrov added, according to the news outlet.
As a reminder,
last night Obama vowed retaliatory
action against Russia for its meddling in the US
presidential election last month. "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign
government tries to impact the integrity of our elections that we need to take action
and we will at a time and place of our own choosing," Obama told National Public Radio.
US intelligence agencies in October pinned blame on Russia for election-related
hacking. At the time, the White House vowed a "proportional response" to the
cyberactivity, though declined to preview what that response might entail. Meanwhile,
both President-elect Donald Trump, the FBI,
and the ODNI
have dismissed the CIA's intelligence community's assessment, for the
the same reason Putin finally lashed out at Obama: there is no proof.
That, however, has never stopped the US from escalating a geopolitical conflict to
the point of war, or beyond, so pay close attention to what Obama says this afternoon.
According to an
NBC report
, a team of analysts at Eurasia Group said in a note on Friday that they
believe the outgoing administration
is likely to take action which could result
in a significant barrier for Trump's team once he takes office in January
.
"It is unlikely that U.S. intelligence reports will change Trump's intention to
initiate a rapprochement with Moscow,
but the congressional response following
its own investigations could obstruct the new administration's effort
," Eurasia
Group analysts added.
At the same time, Wikileaks offered its "validation" services, tweeting that "
Obama
should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if
he wants them to be seen as credible.
"
Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be
authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible.
And orchestrated by Mossad/CIA Millions upon millions of
ordinary folks just got up and voted to take out the trash, and
by God their will be done. If we don't remove the cancerous
tumors now, they will regrow and regroup and in our weakened
state it will be GAME OVER.
The sad part is they are spinning this as election tampering when
in fact there was none, some decent human beings found out the
truth of how corrupt, evil, and treasonous these people are and
wanted the American public to know.
You can tell they are
desperate now, I just hope the law enforcement community is ready
to uphold their oath.
False testimony to Congress on NSA surveillance programs
[
edit
]
Excerpt of James Clapper's testimony before the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence
On March 12, 2013, during a
United
States Senate
Select
Committee on Intelligence
hearing, Senator
Ron
Wyden
quoted the keynote speech at the 2012
DEF
CON
by the director of the NSA,
Keith
B. Alexander
. Alexander had stated that "Our job is foreign
intelligence" and that "Those who would want to weave the story that we have
millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely
false From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." Senator Wyden then
asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or
hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It
does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could
inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."
[30]
When
Edward
Snowden
was asked during his January 26, 2014 TV interview in Moscow
what the decisive moment was or why he blew the whistle, he replied: "Sort
of the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence,
James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. Seeing that really
meant for me there was no going back."
[31]
This is the man reponsible for the newest lie to the American people. Are
you serious?
This asshole jack off obozo wants to start WW3 with Russia for Soros and all
his globalist neocon pals BEFORE he leaves office. His pals shoveled out way
too much money to get that dirty corrupt, crooked pig Hillary elected. The
anti-Trump street protests, riots, burning, pillaging and looting didn't work.
The recount directed by the Hillary stooge Jill Stein actually got Trump more
votes so this didn't work. So now we go with "fake news" accusations against
Russia and Putin. The assholes in our goverment pushing this theme are the
dirty fucking crooks we voted against by voting for Donald Trump. They won't go
down without a fight. So today at 2:15PM ET Obozo will do his best to get the
actual war with Russia on deck!!!
The war mongering neocons won't stop until we have
literally minutes to live. Russia has underground facilitities for 70% of the
citizens in the Russian Federation. In the US only the so-called elites have
some underground place to hide. Like that would save them anyway as it would be
delayed death from Cobalt bombs. We peons and serfs will simply be vaporized
immediately into non-existance. Obozo and his minions and handlers know this
and don't give a fuck.
Obozo and those around him are insane and believe that a
nuclear war with Russia is winnable. The truth is that the world will not even
be fit for human life after a full scale nuclear, chemical and biological
exchange. Who thinks it stops at nuclear? Russia inherited the WMD arsenal of
the Soviet Union. There are enough chemical and biological weapons in the
Russian Federation to kill everyone on earth twenty times.
This is real simple. Obama and Hillary got their asses kicked by Putin in the
Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria because Putin was honest and acted out of integrity
and real concern for his people, and Obama and Hillary were evil and
pathological liars and up to no good, and acted out of a lust for power,
control over others, and stealing their resources. And now the two pathetic
losers want revenge. And this is their vile attempt at trying to get it.
We're laughing at you Hillary and Obama. You are a disgrace to your country and
the human race.
You must remember something here - we laid it on for Vlad / Serg. Our
governments made it so easy for them to play the white knights, they didn't
even need to try. Russian administration is just like any other - the
machine - but we fucked up so tragically bad in our foreign policy conduct
that just going against the unilateral actions of US / NATO / UN has won
Russians major support in Western societies, sick to the back teeth of the
media game BS.
Our elites came to believe that the world is theirs. That
they can take what they want. Citizenry hasn't been best pleased due to
cognitive dissonance ("shining house on the hill" =/= 500k dead Iraqis
"worth it"). Enter the Russians: central admin personnel = expert level 120,
conservative social values, non-interventionist foreign policy, always
stressing legality / due process. They showed us up. Simple as. They were
the first to dare point at our naked emperors.
They also have guns. Lots of guns, and big ones too. We will never really
fight them head on - we wouldn't stand a chance. Not with their society
coalescing around the govt, and ours hating the guts out of our elites. We'd
get stomped.
To quote Joseph Goebbels "If you tell a lie big enough and keep
repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." There are several
things going on. MSM and deep state were counting on a Hillary Clinton victory
and continued US bellicose posturing against Russia. The deep state is also
apoplectic about the military debacle in Syria. The ministry of propaganda-
corporate media (owned by 6 large corporations; Link:
www.wakingtimes.com/2015/08/28/the-illusion-of-choice-90-of-american-media-controlled-by-6-corporations
)
has been saturating the airwaves and social media with ongoing stories about
Russian "hacking" which are probably nonsense. A far more likely scenario is
this "hacking" was carried out by people with intimate knowledge of Hillary
Clinton's background, her email correspondence and location of servers where
this information was stored/archived, such as people in the FBI, CIA, DHS or
State Dept. These hacked messages were then forwarded to Judicial Watch,
WikiLeaks or contacts in Russia or China to cover their tracks.
This might be of interest-
Former NSA Officer CIA Lying About Russians Hacking DNC By Jim W. Dean Dec
14, 2016; Link:
www.veteranstoday.com/2016/12/14/former-nsa-officer-cia-lying-about-russians-hacking-dnc
Bottom line is that fierce battles are going on between completing
economic factions who run the US. Both groups are pursuing increasingly
reckless and bellicose foreign policies which are likely to lead to direct
military confrontations with Russia and China.
I'm a cyber security professional with over 30 years experience and several
certifications. Hackers with apparent Russian ties (not necessarily the
Russian government) have been involved in global hacking efforts for many
years. So have the Chinese. So has everyone else, including the US.
None of
this may be true at all, because hackers that know what they're doing never
leave a trail behind. EVER. And if they do leave a trail, it's almost always
a false flag -- which means that what you think you see is not actually where
it came from. It's highly unlikely that sophisticated hackers connected with
the Russian government would be stupid enough to leave anything behind that
identified who they were or where they operated from.
I'm calling BS on this whole thing, for two reasons. One -- the
"election" wasn't hacked, the DNC was -- and their extremely dirty laundry
aired. We now know for certain that the Democrats are a bunch of liars,
thieves, and hooligans that could care less about the country. And two -- the
politicization of this by Obama is nauseating. The likelihood that anyone knows
for certain that the Russian government was behind it is about zero or less.
Yesterday, Julian Assange emphatically stated on Sean Hannity's radio show that
the Russians had absolutely no involvement in the Wikileaks hacks. I'll
believe Assange before the Obama administration or US media shills. Assange
has never been proven wrong.
The Associated Press and the New York Times are repeating, word for word,
whatever CIA and CIA-in-Chief says, and then all Vatican-controlled
newspapers are printing the AP and NYT articles. Big dose of CIA in my
local newspaper today, and yesterday, and every day since, at least,
Merrimack College pointed the way toward The One True Propaganda, with its
junior-professor-of-how-Hollywood-and-TV-portray-overweight-people's
omniscient and omnipotent list of "Fake News Sites". Still waiting for the
Pope to endorse this list: maybe when Rome Freezes Over.
The article nails an important point. The purpose of this exercise is to
sabotage any Trump attempts for a rapprochement with Russia. Peace with major
powers is bad for business and Obama's Zionist masters need war to advance
their one world government plans.
Obama knows no moral compass and will
do anything, say anything, to get the treats from his masters that a faithful
lap dog believes it deserves.
Some of the racist quotes here I can't uptick, that said it was classic Obama
from the trump speech telling EVERYONE in advance what he was going to do
military wise. That is disapointing. Lets assume that China, Russia, and many
other capable state actors did hack Hillary's server? Lets go the route of
occums razor and assume that as a truth. That does not excuse the behavior and
sheer stupidity of:
Setting up an illegal server anyway, AFTER hillary
requested and was denied a phone like the POTUS.
Emails show NSA rejected Hillary Clinton's request for secure smartphone
So let us start here! Keep in mind she lost numerous devices, the stupid
cunt kept loosing her phones and misplacing them.
Then Hillary hell bent on having her own private communication system
circumvents the DOS and sets up her own! At the point where that decision was
made there was no longer any attack against the United States of America but
instead an attack against a politician leaking state level data on a non-secure
media. If anyone should be held accountable it should be Hillary despite
INTENT, yes Hillary.
But it gets better folks!
Then we have the DNC and Weiner hacks, and the DNC and the RNC are not
actual offices of government, There is no fucking .gov address behind the DNC
or GOP. The nice lady who runs the local GOP isn't a vetted government
employee and used some poor habits in her handling of data, she was ignorant of
a BCC and the security of doing so. (to her credit she learned quickly) ***
side note
And then finally there was Weiners emails. These emails were on a
non-government device/computer and seemed to have been traversed by yahoo. So
you have these stupid fucking people doing the following: Using Yahoo, DNC,
and Gov systems utilizing the same passwords. BUT IT GETS BETTER
So now a phishing attack at one account podesta becomes a swiss cheese
attack as numerous vectors are exploited, did the Russians hack weiner and put
the emails on his device? It is with password complexity, password expiration,
and non-passowrd reuse that government can ensure that you don't use the same
password on Yahoo that you use at .gov sites. It is by using multi-factor
authentication and geo location that a .gov account can be authenticated and
authorized.
But what we have is a bunch of assholes who mishandled the peoples data or
governmnet data and it was never their personal data! It was either the data
of the united states in which case Hillary should be fucking charged or it was
not and she is a stupid fucking victim like the other billion or so yahoo
hacks.
So now we got Obama just like Trump said, telling the world what we are
going to do before we do it for optimal results.. lets tell russia in
advance.. we will attack at noon...for what has been characterized as yoga
emails on non-government systems by the attorney general.
This is why I hate the elites, this is why I never needed Russia to do
anything to votes against these incompetent and ridiculous assholes.
As Obama leaves offce remember that this observation is concise and made
from an educated and unbiased persepctive of handling government data.
The echo cjhamber that Obama lives in has become as insular as that of
Hillary. And damn these people for their confusion of conviction with fact.
And finally.. we beat the democrats in PA the good old fashioned way.. we were
grassroots and not astro-turf.
***** The local GOP website was being cyber-squated when I volunteered, an
email of so from me on blacklisting it and there ads would not have shut them
down, but it would have hit them in the pocket and caused monetary disruption,
they released the expired domain and stopped squatting, the local head of the
GOP, defintly not .gov but "GOP" was being blocked by email systems because she
would send out GOP emails to an email list with 100 or so recipients and the
spam filters thought it was spam or a virus. So I explained to her how to use
BCC tools, and our communication improved. I didn't want my email shared with
everyone anyway! But the DNC and GOP ain't fucking government.. at best these
people are like televangelists which is like hollywood for ugly people.
I can say this, I have an ENORMOUS respect for the local GOP, I have come to
like many of them. I don't agree with them on everything but never has so few,
worked so hard, to empower so many more to volunteer and win an election. And
to their credit shown the right way changed, they didn't piss and moan.
Good observations, sir. People like you are the reason ZH is so useful for
enlightenment.
I should add that if Hillary was claiming to lose her
phone, then Hillary probably wasn't losing her phone all the time. She was
probably periodically destroying it to destroy evidence. Burn phones or
burners are a common technique among criminals to minimize the evidence
available if/when they get caught.
Looks to me like Obola and his cabal are trying to cause as much friction as
possible with Russia before he leaves office.
This garbage allegation about
Putin being personally involved in hacking the US election, the recent
announcement of supplying more weapons to terrorists in Syria, recent wild
allegations of Russian genocide in Syria (whilst ignoring Syrian people waving
and cheering when the SAA arrived in Allepo) and threats to begin a cyberwar
are all designed to do this.
Obama has acted like a CIA employee for 8 years. He lied to get into office
and he's lied ever since, just like the CIA teaches its employees to do. The
CIA is not bound by US or international law and they could give a shit about
our Constitution, our laws, or our elections, as long as their preferred
candidate gets in of course. Are we currently any better than the Nazis?
Conquering other countries is the same regardless if you do it covertly or
not, regardless of how many lies you say or not. These people must be stopped.
Unfortunately it might take mass civil unrest to bring the changes we need.
Stealing the election from Trump and handing it to a criminal like Clinton may
be the spark. Let's hope there are enough people left with integrity and
intelligence in DC to do the right thing.
There is no concept of a open courtroom to decide contentious technical issues
like. This . Cozy bear, whatever bear
'more than i can' bear. A jury of fair minded people can decide when a good
adversarial courtroom encounter occurs.
I would like to see Trey Gowdy defending Putin against whatever CIA stooge they
send up. Obama has a lot of gall to complain about hacking when Hillary,
Podesta, and the run DNC gang was so careless that a very amateur
hacking/phishing effort would be sufficient to do this break in. Then there is
the assertion that some disgruntled democratic people leaked the whole works-
from the inside- being mad at Hillary over Bernie I guess.
If the US wants as gentlemen agreement not to read each others mail, maybe
we could pursue that but hacking Putin and sending NGO's to undermine him, the
numerous color revolutions from George Soros in Ukraine, Georgia, ... make it
seem to me that Putin is the aggrieved party here, now being threatened by
Obama personally. Everybody snoops on everybody. Israel, Russia, US and the
five eyes, China, ... but when it gets personal like this Putin Obama threat
thing, we could cross a line, like an obscure assassination of the Austrian
Archduke by some Serbian did. Putin is a serious fellow and not somebody to
threaten without consequences. We may think he sees it as just posturing, and
we better hope it stops right there. If the Clinton mob can't win, they may
decide to bring the house down on everybody.
Obama: "I am, of course, not speaking about the real, live Vladimir Putin. I
am speaking about our CIA cardboard-cutout caricature of Vladimir Putin. We
ALWAYS have a number of cardboard-cutouts in stock, of various people, to blame
for whatever goes wrong next.
"....while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused "Western
media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of
various power groups
",
and added that "it's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova
said. "
the general public nowadays can distinguish the truth
. It's the
mass
media that is manipulating themselves
.""
Can you effin believe
such a statement made by the Russian gubmint - and that it is
true
?
This whole affair screams one thing and one thing only: politics. And dirty,
childish, Democrat politics at that. COULD the Russian government have hacked
the DNC? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? NO. Government-sponsored
hackers don't leave telltale signs as to who they are, they leave false flags
and a trail of breadcrumbs that lead nowhere or to places they want you to
think the hack came from. Anyone smart enough to hack the DNC isn't going to
do anything to reveal who they are. Not even accidentally.
The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian
cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election,
three American officials said on Monday.
While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis
of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive
evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials,
who declined to be named .
An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.
"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said
one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in
Moscow."
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that
can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis a deductive assessment of the available
intelligence for the same reason, the three officials said
But all of them, without exception, accept that the Democrats' server was hacked by Russia, and
that it was Russia who leaked the information through Wikileaks, and that Russia also hacked the
Republicans but declined to release incriminating or influential material it had in its possession.
There is, to my knowledge, no evidence of this, either.
On watching the "Keiser Report " on the imperial blowback against independent media, it strikes me
that the MSM are as to the Papacy as the new media are to Martin Luther:
"... That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack into voting machines, but not clever enough to cover their tracks? ..."
"... It's strangely reminiscent of the days of the Red scare, minus the Reds. ..."
"... The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put Trump in the White House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. ..."
"... was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance. ..."
"... They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican. They hoped they would be so revolted by Trump that they would vote for her, but they didn't. ..."
"... It's panic over loss of control. They aren't pondering ways to make things better for the American people. Not in the Beltaway. Not the duoploy. The handwringing is strictly about control and pasification of the population. ..."
"... The long, long list of dodgy-donors to The Clinton Foundation told large numbers of Democrat voters everything they needed to know about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. This, and the 'knifing' of Bernie, sealed her fate. ..."
"... America will never, and should never, forgive Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. ..."
"... At last! Someone on this newspaper talking common sense. ..."
"... Absurd! She was a rich white hawkish neolib who has no one but herself and the Democratic Pary to blame for the terrible loss which will seal the supreme court for years. Face facts!! She couldn't even beat Trump and was widely viewed as a fraud. ..."
"... The person who lost the Presidential Election in USA is Hillary Clinton. She, like Blair is a war monger. I, if I had a vote, would not have voted for her. ..."
"... If she had been elected we would have had bigger and better wars in the Middle East. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended despite Obama calling the Iraq war a "strategic mistake". One that continued for another eight years. To those two we have added Syria and Lybia. ..."
"... " ...reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. " The rest of the world has known that for decades. ..."
"... I don't understand how accurate reporting by Wikileaks of politicians' emails is considered 'interference' with the US elections. To me, it seems helpful. If a US newspaper made the report, they would probably get a prize. If a foreign organization made the report, so what? People abroad are free (I hope) to comment on US matters, and people in the US are free to read it or not. ..."
"... Perhaps they mean the Guardian's politics. Identity politics has been thoroughly rejected and instead of learning from the experience, Guardian has been electing to throw more of the same tactics, except louder ..."
"... Americans across the political spectrum are happy to use Putin to distract them from reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. ..."
"... You're absolutely right. Putin is the boogeyman for every ill, real or purported, of his own society, and when the American political system and its institutions prove to be broken, Putin gets to be the boogeyman for that, too. What a powerful man! He must be pleased. ..."
"... This is an ultimate truth because it explains why Merkel will not be elected. These days Putin is in full control of the world and is responsible for everything. ..."
"... Let's thank Hillary for that. There is a very good news: on the 20th January we'll cut all Saudi supply channels to the IS and kill all the bastards within 2 months. ..."
"... In the modern world it is enough to do nothing to be a good man, eg if Bush, Blair, Obama and Clinton didn't create ISIS, the world would be a much better place. You do not even need to be smart to understand this. ..."
"... It's crazy. Even if the Russian hacking claims are legitimate, the leaks still revealed things about the Democrats that were true. It's like telling your friend that their spouse is cheating on them, and then the spouse blaming you for ruining the marriage. ..."
"... The Clinton campaign spent like drunken sailors, on media. This is a new role for the media giants that took care of Clinton's every need, including providing motivational research and other consultants. ..."
"... The ongoing scenario that now spins around Putin as a central figure is a product of "after shock media". ..."
"... To weave fictional reality in real time for a mass audience is a magnum leap from internet fake news. This drama is concocted to keep DNC from going into seclusion until the inauguration. ..."
"... Doug Henwood is absolutely correct. This obsession with the supposed foreign interference is baseless. All the real culprits operate within our own system. ..."
"... Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders." ..."
"... I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, and I note that already Trump's campaign has put down TWO odious political dynasties, AND the TPP -- all very healthy developments. ..."
"... The only thing that kept the contest somehow close was the unprecedented all-media fear campaign against Trump. ..."
"... It was always Hillary's election to lose and she lost it simply because she was not to be trusted. Her very public endorsement by gangster capitalist Jay-Z told you all you needed to know about who she represented. ..."
"... I was dubious before, but I'm now actively concerned. This crop of Democrats and their deep state cohorts are unhinged and dangerous. They see me and my families' lives as an externality in their eventual war with Russia. As Phyrric a victory as there could possibly be. They are psychotic; not only waging countless coups and intelligence operations abroad, but now in plain sight on American soil. The mainstream media seems to invoke the spirit of Goebbels more vividly with each passing day. Their disdain and manipulation of the general populace is chilling. They see us not as people to be won-over, but as things to be manipulated, tricked and coerced. Nothing new for politicians (particularity the opposition) - but the levels here are staggering. ..."
"... January couldn't come soon enough - and I say that as strong critic of Trump. ..."
"... A good article to counterbalance the reams of rubbish we are hearing in the US election post-mortem. Anyone who had neural activity should have known that when you steal the candidacy, you certainly won't get the votes. Clinton effectively handed the election to Trump by not having the humility, humanity and honesty to admit defeat by Benie Sanders. ..."
"... There's always the possibility of course, that the US establishment realised Clinton's blatant warmongering wasn't 'good for business'. ..."
"... So maybe, they thought, we can get the Russkies 'on side', deal with China (ie. reduce it to a 'client state'/ turn it into an ashtray) - and then move on Russia and grab all those lovely resources freed up by global warming.... ..."
"... Only her campaign volunteers knew, her message to the public was "dont vote for Trump" which translates to, I could lose to him, vote for me! ..."
"... The Podesta emails confirmed what many people already suspected and knew of Hillary and her campaign. Those who were interested in reading them had to actually look for them, since MSM was not reporting on them. It's not as if an avid MSNBC or CNN watcher was going to be exposed. ..."
"... It's hilarious how the major Left outlets (Washington Post) are now telling it's readers how Russia is to blame for people voting against Hillary due to the Podesta emails, when they didn't even report on the emails in the first place. ..."
"... EVERYTHING about the system all halfway decent people detest, is summed up in the figure of Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Like Donald said, she had 'experience', but it was all BAD 'experience'. ..."
"... she is a frail, withered old woman who needs to retire - def the wrong democrat choice, crazy -- Berni.S would have won if for them - he is far more sincere ..."
"... "The displaced machinists... believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance." ..."
"... This argument is as asinine as the one the author opposes. It was a collusion of events that led to this result, including the failure of both parties to adapt to an evolving economic and social climate over decades. The right wing hailing the collapse of liberalism as a result of decades of liberal mismanagement conveniently forget their own parties have held the reins for half that time, and failed just as miserably as the left.... ..."
"... It's quite bizarre to see "progressives" openly side with the military industrial complex, which is threatened by a president elect weary of more warfare. ..."
"... It's to be expected from career politicians like McCain who is kicking and screaming, but it's shameful to see supposed liberally-minded people help spread the Red Scare storyline. ..."
"... Obama has behaved dreadfully, first he or his office gets one of its poodles namely MI6 to point the finger at Putin re cyberwar, which was swiftly followed by the International Olympic Committee looking at Russia for 2012 Olympic games, the elections in the US and the Democrats CIA coming out with unsubstantiated nonsense (funny how they never like, providing collaborative evidence - on this or anything that supposedly Russia has done) then there is Syria, and Obama and the Democrats were the cheerleader for regime change, because they have been out manoeuvred in that sphere. All of it in less than a week. ..."
"... If Obama, the administration, and the CIA were smart they would have realised that a concerted effort to blame Putin / Russia would be seen for what it is - a liar and one of trying to discredit both the outcome of the US elections, the dislike of HRC, and her association with Wall St. - she raised more money for her campaign than Trump and Sanders put together (if the Democrats had chosen Sanders, then they would have stood a chance) and that their hawk would not be in a position to create WW111 - thank goodness. The Democrats deserved what they got. ..."
"... This organ of the liberal media (no scare quotes required - it is socially liberal and economically neoliberal), along with many others, dogmatically supported Clinton against Sanders to the point of printing daily and ridiculous dishonesty, even going so far as to make out as if anyone who supports any form of wealth redistribution is a racist, sexist, whitesplaining dude-bro. ..."
"... The Wikileaks emails proved the votes were rigged against Sanders, it why Debbie W Shulz had to resign ..."
"... The election was close, and if one less thing had gone wrong for Hillary she would have won. However I think an important thing that lost her the election was identity politics. She patronized Afro-Americans and Hispanics, by tell them that because they are Trump-threatened minorities, they should vote for her. In the same vein, gays and women were supposed to vote for her. But what she was really telling these groups was that they should revel in their supposed victimhood, which was not a great message. ..."
"... Completely agreed! The onus for defeat belongs to the Democrat party leadership as well. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both understood where the momentum of the election was headed before anyone else did. The election was won and lost in the white blue collar Midwest. A place that decided that diet corporatism is decidedly worse than a populist right wing extremist. ..."
"... No one here believed the ridiculous about-face Hillary pulled on the question of the TPP. I guarantee you Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps Ohio and Iowa. ..."
"... "Our self-image as the world's greatest democracy...." Well, speaking for myself and plenty of other Americans, I never said anything like that about us. In fact, like a lot of people I wish we would stick to our own business, quit trying to be the world's cop, and cease meddling in other countries' affairs. ..."
"... Assuming that it really was the Russians who done it, I guess they had a better game plan than the Saudis. ..."
"... Her 'deplorables' comment was every bit as telling as Mitt Romney's '47%'. We really needed to know about her 'public versus private positions', even if it only confirmed what everybody already knew. I am not 100% sure the system made the worst choice in raising up Donald Trump. ..."
"... The American voters heard a steady stream of these arguments. Some may have simply ignored them. Others took them into consideration, but concluded that they wanted drastic change enough to put them aside. White women decided that Trump's comments, while distasteful, were things they'd heard before. ..."
"... Reliance on the sanctity of racial and gender pieties was a mistake. Not everyone treats these subjects as the holiest of holies. The people who would be most swayed by those arguments never would have voted for Trump anyways. ..."
"... Colin Powell said Clinton destroys everything she touches with hubris. Seeing as how she destroyed the democrat "blue wall" and also had low turnout which hurt democrats down the ticket I agree. ..."
"... All this hysteria about the USA and Russia finally working together than apart doesn't help either for it appears that the [neoliberal] lefties want a perpetual war rather than peace. ..."
"... The CIA being outraged about a foreign state intervening in an election is quite funny. They have intervened so many times, especially in Latin America, to install puppet regimes. ..."
"... As for hacking... does anybody believe the CIA has never hacked anybody? ..."
Hillary Clinton was the symbol of neoliberal globalization and contept of neoliberal for common
poeple (aka deplorable). That's why she lost. this is more of the first defeat of neoliberal
candidate in the USA then personal defeat of Hillary. She was just a symbol, or puppet, if you wish.
... ... ...
And what exactly are the claims made by these Putin-did-it stories? That were it not for Russian
chicanery, Hillary Clinton would have won the popular vote by five million and not almost three million?
That displaced machinists on the banks of Lake Erie were so incensed by the Podesta emails that they
voted for Trump instead of Clinton? That Putin was pulling FBI director James Comey's strings in
his investigation of the Clinton emails? That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack
into voting machines, but not clever enough to cover their tracks?
It's strangely reminiscent of the days of the Red scare, minus the Reds.
... ... ...
The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put Trump in the White
House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted
Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle
and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance.
They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial
states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican. They hoped they would
be so revolted by Trump that they would vote for her, but they didn't.
... ... ...
Of course there are questions about our voting machines. The American balloting system is a chaotic
mess, with an array of state and local authorities conducting elections under a vast variety of rules
using technologies ranging from old-fashioned paper ballots to sleek touch-screen devices.
The former take forever to count, and the latter are unauditable we can have no idea whether
the counts are accurate. The whole system is a perfect example of a quote attributed (probably falsely)
to Joseph Stalin: "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide
everything." It's not a system that inspires trust, but we barely discuss that.
It's panic over loss of control. They aren't pondering ways to make things better for the
American people. Not in the Beltaway. Not the duoploy. The handwringing is strictly about control
and pasification of the population.
And you're shocked? I'm shocked you expected more.
The really amazing story about the presidential elections 2016 was actually not Clinton or Trump.
It was how close the US actually got to get its first socialist, or factually rather social-democratic
president. Americans are craving for more justice and equality.
And no, Clinton does not stand for any "left values". Therefore the media favored her.
The long, long list of dodgy-donors to The Clinton Foundation told large numbers of Democrat
voters everything they needed to know about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. This, and
the 'knifing' of Bernie, sealed her fate. A reincarnated Tricky Dicky would have trounced
her, too.
Weird in your mind only. A letter just before the election suggesting that Clinton might be indicted?
And was she? Of course not. Match the letter's release with the polls at the time to see it's
influence.
Clinton's problems such as her email server were nothing compared to all the baggage that Trump
carries, yet Trump's problems were blithely ignored by many because they thought Trump would make
a difference.
At last! Someone on this newspaper talking common sense.
For the last twenty years, (way before we even knew Putin's name) the Republican Party have
promoted, fomented and instigated the most ludicrous lies and calumnies about the Democratic Party
and particularly Hilary Clinton, who they quite rightly recognised as a future Democratic Presidential
candidate.
They have politicised: education, defense, Federal Parks, water, race, religion and even the
air we breath in their efforts to ensure victory and to this end, they bought and paid for populist
uprisings against Democratic politicians, like the now abandoned Tea Party.
The problem was that even when Republicans were elected, they obviously couldn't keep their
own nonsensical promises to their now rabid audience who no longer trusted their own elected Government.
When Trump, a disestablishment, anti-Government candidate came along, the electorate (naively)
saw a possibility of the change they have been promised.
Of course the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton, since they can see the destruction he can
cause their geopolitical adversary and Putin would say as much as he can to support Trump...errr....even
though it would be counter-productive with conservative voters...but it is unlikely that he bears
anywhere near the blame that the Republican Party does, who foolishly allowed their own 'attack
dog' to bite them on the arse.
I'm sorry to say that the Republican Party (and the US) has to suck this one up and admit...(to
mix my hackneyed metaphors) that they've blown themselves up with their own petard!
I think with hindsight Bernie Sanders is going to be blamed for dividing the Democratic Party
and bolstering the Republican propaganda against the Clintons. If only we had stuck together with
Clinton we wouldn't be facing the Trump disaster now. Hillary Clinton is not evil and she was
very highly qualified--to paraphrase Brando, we could have had progress instead of a disaster,
which is what we have now.
Absurd! She was a rich white hawkish neolib who has no one but herself and the Democratic
Pary to blame for the terrible loss which will seal the supreme court for years. Face facts!!
She couldn't even beat Trump and was widely viewed as a fraud.
You fool, the Libertarian party is the largest third party in the US and they mostly take votes
from the Republicans. Stop blaming third parties when their existence demonstrably helps the Democrats.
Or perhaps you dream of a world where conservatives still support their third party just as much
as they ever did but lefties all move in perfect lockstep? If so, it's time for a reality check.
Up jumped Hilary Benn with the theory that Jeremy Corbyn had caused the Brexit vote. His resignation
and the denunciation of 172 Labour MP's based on an "indisputable fact" that nobody believes to
be true today. The person who lost the Presidential Election in USA is Hillary Clinton. She,
like Blair is a war monger. I, if I had a vote, would not have voted for her.
If she had been elected we would have had bigger and better wars in the Middle East. The
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended despite Obama calling the Iraq war a "strategic mistake".
One that continued for another eight years. To those two we have added Syria and Lybia. The
west, like Russia, is dabbling in other people's wars. They have been made one hundred times worse.
What Hillary would not have dabbled in is the industrial decline in the "Rust Belt" states.
She is proposing to do nothing. So they had the prospect of no rectification at home with yet
more wars abroad. No wonder they stayed at home. Hillary and Nu Labour are the same: belligerancy
in the Middle East coupled with tame pussy cat against failing capitalism at home. The middle
east has got total destruction from the west and total nothingness but austerity (ie more failure)
as the action plan for capitalism. They are on the "same page" then!
I don't understand how accurate reporting by Wikileaks of politicians' emails is considered
'interference' with the US elections. To me, it seems helpful. If a US newspaper made the report,
they would probably get a prize. If a foreign organization made the report, so what? People abroad
are free (I hope) to comment on US matters, and people in the US are free to read it or not.
It could be argued that only reporting democratic emails is distorting the truth: I'd say its
a step towards the whole truth. I welcome all disclosures that are pertinent to a good decision
by US voters.
Perhaps they mean the Guardian's politics. Identity politics has been thoroughly rejected
and instead of learning from the experience, Guardian has been electing to throw more of the same
tactics, except louder
Citizens of the UK are by far the most heavily surveilled in the western world. This has been
the case since long before the ubiquitous introduction of CCTV cameras.
Americans across the political spectrum are happy to use Putin to distract them from
reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is.
You're absolutely right. Putin is the boogeyman for every ill, real or purported, of his
own society, and when the American political system and its institutions prove to be broken, Putin
gets to be the boogeyman for that, too. What a powerful man! He must be pleased.
Only, the thing is, the American political system and its institutions - American democracy
- weren't undermined overnight. It took several decades and it was done by Americans who weren't
so keen on democracy. Can't fob that off on Putin, try as they might.
If American power takes a big fat fall like Humpty Dumpty, don't look to Vladimir Putin, look
in a fucking mirror. That's where you'll find the culprit.
This is an ultimate truth because it explains why Merkel will not be elected. These days Putin
is in full control of the world and is responsible for everything.
Let's thank Hillary for that. There is a very good news: on the 20th January we'll cut all
Saudi supply channels to the IS and kill all the bastards within 2 months.
In the modern world it is enough to do nothing to be a good man, eg if Bush, Blair, Obama
and Clinton didn't create ISIS, the world would be a much better place. You do not even need to
be smart to understand this.
Your Donald.
From where you'd rather be.
With love.
It's crazy. Even if the Russian hacking claims are legitimate, the leaks still revealed things
about the Democrats that were true. It's like telling your friend that their spouse is cheating
on them, and then the spouse blaming you for ruining the marriage.
The Clinton campaign spent like drunken sailors, on media. This is a new role for the media
giants that took care of Clinton's every need, including providing motivational research and other
consultants.
The ongoing scenario that now spins around Putin as a central figure is a product of "after
shock media". Broadcast media bounced America back and forth from sit-com to gun violence
for decades, giving fiction paramount value. To weave fictional reality in real time for a
mass audience is a magnum leap from internet fake news. This drama is concocted to keep DNC from
going into seclusion until the inauguration.
Doug Henwood is absolutely correct. This obsession with the supposed foreign interference
is baseless. All the real culprits operate within our own system.
Maybe, in four years, Trump's administration can oversee a secure election. Unlike the Obama folks,
who seem to make a calamity out of any project bigger than making a sandwich.
This hullabaloo really highlights the disdain the establishment has for the American voter. They
thought they had it tied up. They thought they had pulled one over on the American people. They
are not interested in what the voter actually wants.
And this raises questions about why our servicemen and women are making sacrifices. The establishment
story-line talks about our brave soldiers dying so we can have free elections. Or something like
that. The establishment does not care about free and fair elections. In fact, this hullabaloo
should have demonstrated to everybody that the establishment does not respect or accepts the results
of elections that don't go their way.
Look at WikiLeaks. They died so Hillary could present her ever-so-clever "tick-tock on Libya"
and make fools think she's a constructive foreign policy force.
H. Clinton would have started a war against Russia in Syria come January; and war against Russia
in The Ukraine shortly after. Trump could yet end civilization as we know it: thereagain the CIA
might 'JFK' him early doors before he's able to.
Fully agree with you. Trump's victory is certain to have incalculable consequences for life on
earth. I believe he will give Netenyahu the green light to use tactical nuclear weapons against
Iranian nuclear and military facilities. I am no fan of Trump.
American 'exceptionalism;' The World's Policeman; The greatest country on earth. Descriptions
believed and espoused by the USA. So Exceptional is America that it claims a God-given right to
interfere with or sabotage political parties, foriegn governments (democratically-elected or not)
and sovereign states anywhere it chooses. Now we have the hilarious spectacle of a historically
blood-drenched CIA (Fake News Central) squawking and squealing completely fabricated nonsense
about Kremlin interference in Trump's election victory. Tell that to the tens of millions slaughtered
in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the many other nations and people's around the globe who have
had first hand experience of American Exceptionalism. You could not make it up..
Arguably, Clinton and the DNC themselves showed very little respect for democracy, as we know
from leaks. And now they are whining because of a democratic outcome they don't like.
We should discuss two things:
- the content of the mails
- and the ethical question: did the hacker, whoever it is, did democracy rather a service than
a disservice? From when on is a piece of information so valuable that its origins don't matter
anymore?
Media, at least in times when msm still had some moral clout, often relied in their investigative
journalism on source which by themselves were not necessarily ethically bona fide - but the public
interest, the common good benefited by the information.
Had Clinton won the election and we only found out now about the trickery that aided in her
success we would have a major dilemma. We would have to have endless discussions now about her
legitimacy.
I am one who firmly believes that Clinton lost this election because of Clinton's and the DNC's
ineptitude and hubris.
But that doesn't mean the Russians weren't running a psy-ops campaign of fake news stories
and misinformation about Clinton and this election on Facebook.
Which was more responsible for Clinton's loss? Most probably Clinton's ineptitude but the fake
news campaigns on Facebook had some effect. It needs to be addressed...
But hadn't Hillary made it personal by saying Trump was Putin's puppet etc?
She even refused to state whether she'd seek to impose a no-fly zone over Syria; this despite
leading Generals telling her it would mean going to war with Russia and Syria.
Given all that, it's hardly surprising the Russian Duma broke into spontaneous applause upon
the confirmation of her defeat. She'd very much cast herself as the enemy of Russia in the campaign.
With the naming of Rex Tillerson, a close business, and personal, friend of Putin, to be Secy.
of State I am not sure the argument can be made that she was wrong in her assessment.
This article is absolutely right. Trump was not a good candidate and for him to beat Clinton should
be setting alarm bells ringing in Democrat HQ. The left though does have an entrenched culture
of deluding itself and convincing itself that its a victim of things beyond its control. That
lack of self awareness and inability to be brutally honest with itself is a major reason why the
left wins many fewer elections than the left. It is also why there are never shock wins for the
Democrats or Labour because they always assume too much. The Tories and Republicans are very good
at understanding their weaknesses and mitigating them to win elections.
It's absurd to consider Clinton and the mainstream Democrats as part of "the Left". Even the best
of the Democrats are generally more on the Right than on the Left, in that they are pro-capitalist
and defend the national interests of U.S. imperialism. Add to that their almost unanimous support
for the settler colony called "Israel" and there's very little leftism to be found among them.
Cunning of Putin to go back in time and persuade the framers of the US constitution to institute
an electoral college, so that he could put his own candidate in place all those hundreds of years
later.
No. Both candidates fought an election under the same rules. In the run up to the vote, Hillary's
spokesmen often argued that even if the vote was close, they had the electoral college sewn up.
She has nobody to blame but herself.
There are plenty of villains who contributed to the electoral downfall of HRC, mostly, though,
it's HRC who is primarily responsible, with a big assist from an arrogant & politically inept
DNC. Hillary won a bare majority of women, plus the average income of Trump voters exceeded that
of Hillies' supporters. Then all the groundwork for the deplorables was laid by Bill, who got
rid of Glass-Steagell. Too much is being made of the machinist from Erie & the deplorables generally
& if the Dems don't take a serious look at themselves we'll have Agent Orange for 8 rather than
4 deplorable years.
For goodness sake, it is not foreign governments , it is information. With advance of social media
and internet it became so much harder to control the information that gets out.
That is where we are in a post-propaganda world. You are not only receiving your government approved
daily portion of brainwashing but propaganda and brainwashing and information from various sources,
all with their various interests. It is your job a s an individual to decide what to believe.
You can't put the jinni back in the box.
It is all about a narrative to suit the agenda. Had Trump outspent Clinton 2:1 he would now be
reviled as the candidate of arms industry, pharmaceuticals and big banks. Had Clinton defeated
him it would be celebrated as a successful setback for the aforementioned industries; the intelligence
of the voters would have been praised. But then supposedly, Clinton was more supported by disadvantaged
groups, albeit they then also would be disadvantaged with regards to their education.
It will always end up in absurdity. However, the notion that "Putin" (never with first name,
or Mr, preferably pronounced "Poot'n") decided the US presidency is, interesting.
Usually the issue simply is, crap candidate, crap result.
Had Sanders been the candidate and had he lost to Trump, I doubt very much he'd have started all
this blaming the Russians nonsense.
Ultimately, Hilary had terrible trustworthiness ratings from nearly 25 years in frontline politics;
every shortcoming ruthlessly exploited along the way by her and her husband's political opponents.
Ignoring all that historic baggage(dating back to the early '90s) as irrelevant and blaming defeat
on the Russians makes everyone supporting that theory look equally absurd.
In the 2016 Presidential election, in the 49 States other than California, Trump won the popular
vote and enough electoral votes to win the election.
In California, the most populous State in America, the popular vote was so overwhelmingly in favor
of Hillary Clinton that she ended up winning the overall popular vote.
The electoral college is working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended.
In Shakespeare's book "Julius Caesar" the dictator was told not to go to the Capitol where he
will be murdered. His wife warned him, the soothsayer warned him but he ignored it. Caesar's wisdom
was consumed in confidence...confidence that he will be crowned king, confidence that all Romans
(most stupid people then) loved him, and confidence that those who surround him are his 'friends.'
He adamantly went to the Capitol and was murdered.
Clinton ignored most rural areas and I totally agree with the writer along this line "They
were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in
favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican." Clinton and her team paid
dearly for it just like Caesar did. Blaming Russian for the loss is like "You made me do it."
In the UK, Rupert Murdoch accesses a Prime Minister as readily as any government minister and
wields at least as much influence. At least he is open and honest about this. Similar oligarchs
exert their power more discretely. Murdoch's an Australian born US citizen (for business reasons)
with a truly global empire.
A country's big rich have always ruled it's politics. Imperial powers have intervened
in their spheres of influence . But now the big rich are international and, it seems,
1st world electorates are getting a taste of what 3rd world people have become used to.
What strikes me is the reluctance of the US political elite (including Obama) to intervene,
even when there's a suspicion of vote rigging. The right of the rich and powerful to control the
electoral process (as they have long done) trumps the national-interest (US v. rival powers)
side of politics.
Hilary Clinton won the popular vote. More people voted for her. What is the deal with the electoral
college? How is it possible to have such a huge discrepancy between the two. What is the point
of blaming the candidate when they can lose while winning?
And what is the point of blaming the candidate for their campaign when large numbers of Americans
are prepared to believe the most random bullshit? What did you want her to do, lie more often?
Because apparently, that's what it takes.
From my comment above... "In the 2016 Presidential election, in the 49 States other than California,
Trump won the popular vote and enough electoral votes to win the election.
In California, the most populous State in America, the popular vote was so overwhelmingly in favor
of Hillary Clinton that she ended up winning the overall popular vote.
The electoral college is working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended."
The election is decided by Electoral Votes. Everyone including Hillary knew that. Complaining
that she won the popular vote while losing in the Electoral College would be similar to the loser
of a soccer match complaining they lost 1-nil even though they outshot the victor by a 6-1 margin.
Whine all you want about the popular vote, it is irrelevant.
Hillary Clinton visited Arizona in the last week of the election, while visiting Wisconsin
ZERO times in the general election campaign. The trip to Arizona was a waste of time.
She lost because she was a horrible candidate with terrible strategy. All these people bleating
about "Putin" and or the "popular vote" make me laugh.
With respect, you're going to have to back up some of those claims in the second paragraph and
how they could apply to Russia.
As for the first paragraph, a few things come to mind.
Firstly, it's a huge simplification - there are things like public interest laws to be borne
in mind when talking about the press having to obey the law. I don't think there is much doubt
that this was in the public interest. I mean what Clinton did with the email server was actually
illegal. If someone hacked into a mob boss' computer, got evidence of his/her crimes, and leaked
them to the press, would you criticise the hacker or the mob boss?
Secondly, how on earth was this selectively released to favour one side? How do you favour
one side over the other when you only have information on one side. You are literally saying that
you shouldn't report on one side's wrongdoings if you can't find anything wrong about the other's!
If these are genuine - which absolutely no-one to do with Clinton has denied - then that is all
there is to it. Reality isn't partisan.
Or are you talking about how it was released? You mean dumped en masse onto Wikileaks? How
was that showing bias in any way? I just don't understand what you are trying to claim here.
Finally this comment makes me suspect you don't appreciate the American political climate:
But, given the result, the section of the press that would investigate hasn't got the money
or power to do so. You can be assured the Fox network would have devoted billions to the investigation
had HRC won though.
Fox News aren't the only people with money - indeed, Clinton vastly outspent Trump in the election...
by roughly half a billion(!) dollars.
O -- The Director of the CIA says it, then it must be true? Forgive me, but isn't this an organisation
created to spread disinformation around the world, overthrow foreign governments, and subvert
democracy? Which elections in the world has the CIA not tried to influence? Time Magazine openly
boasts that the US government and agencies had a direct role in securing the election of President
Yeltsin (who sold off a significant share of the country's assets under US advice, and plunged
Russia into the worst recession since the 1930s). Hillary Clinton openly supported the management
of the elections for the Palestine National Authority in 2006. Bill Clinton openly agitated for
the overthrow of President Aristide.
Now that the CIA's most assiduous supporters have lost office, up pops the CIA, blaming the Russians,
like we were in some bad 1950s Cold War pastiche. Get real. Take responsibility for your own failures,
Democrats. Time to cleanse the stables.
Where is even the proof of Russian propaganda? It all seems to come from an "Anonymous source",
without verfication I don't see how this is any more legitimate than the rest of the post truth
fake news out there that people believe just because it confirms their biases.
The CIA claim to know that Russian hackers leaked the Clinton campaign emails to Assange. You
can, of course, disbelieve them, but they're not a random anonymous source exactly.
Putin extremely powerful man. Make regime change in Amerika without needing invasion or rebels.
Soon regime change also in many Europan countries by sending copies of emails to small room in
embassy of little country in London.
You know how powerful Putin? Last week even show finger to Chuck Norris! Chuck Norris now call
Putin "sir".
Thank you, Doug Henwood for pointing out what the wholly-owned corporate "pundits" choose not
to divulge to coincide with their own agendas.
Hillary was a disastrous choice for the "Democratic" party, but the vast majority of Democratic
politicians were just too feckless to support Bernie Sanders, so now we have an equally terrible
choice in Donald Trump.
That Clinton and Trump even competed for the presidency is in itself an indication of just
how disconnected and undemocratic U.S. politics has become.
Moreover, as Henwood (a frequent and unsparing critic of Clinton, Inc. over the years) has
pointed out both Democrats and Republicans are supporting the Russia conspiracy theory in a cowardly
attempt to distract the U.S. public from the real and far more dire crisis, which is Washington's
enormous political dysfunction not Russia's complicity. (Read Henwood's essay: Stop Hillary! Vote
no to a Clinton Dynasty in Harper's Magazine, November 2014 - one article a month is free for
reading).
Yes, the electoral college is a ridiculous throwback to slavery which should be abolished,
but its dissolution is just one of many things I'd like to see eradicated from a governing body
that has long stopped representing the interests of working class Americans; unless, of course
you have the influence and money for such access.
The non-violent and powerful Black Lives Matter, Moral Mondays in North Carolina and Standing
Rock protesters (reinforced by U.S. veterans and other supporters) have demonstrated that change
is possible if we're carefully focused on uprooting and replacing government corruption.
The West support for regimes like Israel and Saudi Arabia makes it hard to present a credible
case against Putin on any issues but, rigging the election is just absurd. These days people are
more clued up and know Hillary lost because she was not trusted, carried baggage and was funded
by big banks. It is rather worrying that we've gone backward and Nazi propaganda tactics are the
norm again.
There was a 50/50 chance the Democrats would take the fall from grace; both parties are out of
touch with mainstream, middle-class America, it's just coincidence Trump manifested himself when
he did. Neither party had a good message or a good messenger; the dark phenomenon of Trump could
have come from either party, the nation was so desperate for change. Yet the GOP really maneuvered
for Jeb Bush to begin with; the Democrats, with a significantly smaller field, laid their bet
on Clinton. The public's rejection of both Bush and Clinton left the door open for a GOP interloper,
Trump; and Clinton was pushed on the Democrats rather than Sanders.
Even the GOP will have buyers remorse if/when they cannot temper Trump.
As someone who wanted Hilary to win, it is difficult to disagree with any of this.
If she couldn't beat Trump - who about three times a day said something idiotic or repugnant,
then she really was the wrong candidate
Since he won Trump has actually sounded miles more sensible. I can't help feel that if he had
adopted his current tone before the election that he would have won by a landslide
"This was the strategy not because Clinton was was incompetent; it was the strategy because all
available data pointed to the fact that it was working."
What a joke.
She had a billion dollars in her campaign fund. The money she spent on "data" was just money
flushed down the sewer. (No doubt various Clinton hangers-on got very nice "consulting" fees.)
She was a Democrat who publicly bragged about her devotion to **Henry Kissinger**.
She lost to **Donald Trump**. I think even Martin O'Malley could've beaten Trump; I'm certain
Sanders could. Only Hillary Clinton had the "magic" necessary to lose to a casino and real estate
huckster.
She was always a lousy candidate, and she's an incompetent politician as well. Dems can face
that, face reality, or keep going as they are, in which case there won't **be** a Democratic Party
before long.
Agreed. HRC, DNC and the Clintonistas are the only ones responsible for her loss. But there's
more to their post-election pushback than just shifting the blame, a lot more.
Demonizing Russia isn't just about seeking a scapegoat. Trump's embrace of Russia and decision
to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's
cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate
cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup
of armaments on Russia's borders.
That's a lot of anticipated arms sales and a lot of every bit as anticipated political "donations"
from the corporate establishment.
" Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change
skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in
the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post
Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders."
That's a mighty optimistic forecast, but it's not impossible. I think Trump is likely to be
a disaster, and even if he isn't, an unleashed Republican gang is a horrible thing to imagine.
Still, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, and I note that already Trump's campaign has put
down TWO odious political dynasties, AND the TPP -- all very healthy developments.
Hillary Clinton lost because the majority of the voters were nauseated by her by her fake perma-
smile which might as well have been installed by cosmetic surgery. The well rehearsed, worn-out,
hollow on-message crap she spouted had zilch credibility and as much resonance. She had nothing
to say to the electorate.
That the Clinton spent about twice as much as the Trump camp in this case did not work to her
favour: every appearance on tv made her lose voters.
The only thing that kept the contest somehow close was the unprecedented all-media fear
campaign against Trump.
I have never had any doubt that that Trump would get the job. What surprised me though, is
that only one in 200 eligible voters bothered with the Green's Jill Stein: they are supposedly
relatively highly committed to their causes.
Another mistake of the Clinton campaign, btw. was to focus on scandal. My experience of 45
years of campaigning tells me "scandal" does not win any campaigns.
99% of the weapons in the Trump arsenal were Trumped up Hillary "scandals"
They did not decide it. Neither did the new "sexual victim" paraded every couple of days by
the Clinton camp. Scandal and counter-scandal are part of every campaign and ignored by non-committed
voters.
What did it for Trump was, that he spoke unscripted, thus came across a somewhat more genuine,
and at least acknowledged the victims of de-industrialisation, for which he could not be blamed,
but Clinton could. Clinton did not have anything she could present apart from "better equipped
because of experience" - with an undistinguished actual record. The name Clinton can be blamed
for the plight of the "rust-belt".
Americans have paid a heavy price because of free trade deals and they want a different direction.
In the last 15 years there is a noticeable difference in opportunity and wages and most of our
politicians don't care. Hillary lost this because she supported most free trade and outsourcing
jobs to India and China. They DNC has a chance to reform but they choose not to. I hope Bernie
starts a new party and leaves the neo liberals behind. Who knows where Trump will take us but
if he adds to the swamp he will be a one term president. Right now it looks like he is repaying
his Wall Street fundraisers and big oil super pacs. Our politicians deserve the embarrassment
for ignoring our citizens struggles.
Steven Mnuchin with ties to Wall Street stepped in when no one else would and fund raised for
Trump. Mnuchin is picked as secretary of treasury. Big oil supported Cruz and moved to Trump with
a few superpacs that Kellyanne Conway managed. Both Wall Street and energy will be deregulated.
Also tax reform for corporations. He will have to follow through on new trade deals, tax on imports
and immigration or he will only help the 1%. We will see if he follows through...
I bet in Moscow they're quite enjoying this notion Putin can simply dismiss any govt on earth
by simply letting loose a few hackers and propagandists. And probably thinking if only.
The west looks like its collectively losing its marbles. Political systems, like tastes and
fashion change naturally over time. Our two party systems struggle to cope with any change, thus
the bewildered politicians within these parties lash out.
On November 25, 2016, the Obama administration said the results from November 8, "accurately reflect
the will of the American people." The following day, the White House released another statement
saying, "the federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyberactivity
aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."
And? Does anybody claim that any foreign power hacked the voting machines themselves?
The claim is that Russian directed operatives hacked the DNC, etc. in an attempt to find embarrassing
material that would damage Clinton's candidacy. They succeeded.
Doug Henwood trying to beat the Bernie Sanders drum. What I heard from Bernie Sanders Townhall
in Wisconsin is that people blamed illegal immigrants for their situation. Deep down inside they
have been Trump supporters for a while. That is why Trump won Wisconsin.
A Labour MP is claiming that Putin also fixed the Brexit vote - which also shows how people will
blame anyone but themselves for losing a vote. There is not one Clinton supporter who would have
complained about the result had she won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote.
That is not to say that the system should not be changed but Democrats and/or Clintonites should
not try to change it retrospectively. That would mean chaos.
Totally agree with this article by Mr. Henwood. If Democrats, and Republicans for that matter,
want to go on a wild goose chase to blame Russians for the election outcome, with basically no
hard evidence to back their claim, rather than look at the real reasons why they lost (disaffected
angry citizens and not being able to compete with Trump because they chose lousy candidates) then
they deserve to continue losing their future elections. So be it.
If she had not spent so much time calling Trump a Misogynist while taking money from Saudi Arabia
then maybe , just maybe she would have not come across as the most deceitful and toxic candidate
the US has ever seen.
Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin solely because of NAFTA & TPP. Bill &
Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA. Hillary Clinton had a history of supporting TPP & Obama was actively
pushing it. When Hillary Clinton changed her position on TPP people in the old industrial heartland
were not convinced that was sincere. The Russians were not responsible for Hillary, Bill & Obama's
history of support for trade deals that facilitate moving jobs to low wage countries that suppress
unions, allow unsafe working conditions & don't have meaningful environmental regulations.
Julian Assange denies that the Russian government was the source of the hacked emails
to and from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta that WikiLeaks published. Of course, there's
no way of knowing if he's telling the truth but regardless of their source, how much influence
did they have on the election outcome?
oh, right
so when the Wikileaks reveals evilness of the conservatives, it's good, but when the liberals
get revealed, he's not telling the truth?
give me a break.
Wikileaks is a neutral source, not a conservative or a liberal one.
I agree with you. However may I add that the point is not whether Assange is of good character
or whether Wikileaks is left or right. The point is has any Wikileaks releases been proven false
in the last 10 years or so?
Wikileaks is a neutral source, not a conservative or a liberal one.
Bull. Assange dripped, dripped, dripped the leaks so that it would do maximum damage to Clinton.
Whether he has conservative or liberal leanings is irrelevant. What in incontrovertible, however,
is that he has an anti-Clinton bias.
What the leaks revealed is exactly the kind of internal policy debates, calibration of message,
and gossipy venting that occurs in any political campaign. Only out of context did they appear
damaging.
The other big elephant in the room is that nearly half of those eligible to vote did not. Instead,
the hysterical US media engage the gullible populace in yet another game of mass distraction,
and soon Putin will be forgotten and all will salivate over the Oscar nominations. Thus the United
States of Amnesia will settle into its usual addictive habit of running after any "news" that
holds the promise of distractive entertainment. Never mind the nation's democracy... "We amuse
ourselves to death" (Neil Postman).
Otto Bismarck once said: "laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made"
To paraphrase, I guess you could also say the same about elections. Leaks revealing behind
the curtains shenanigans of any election would turn most stomachs. After seeing this election
I may become a vegetarian.
Too right. It was always Hillary's election to lose and she lost it simply because she was
not to be trusted. Her very public endorsement by gangster capitalist Jay-Z told you all you needed
to know about who she represented.
I used to work for an American oil company. Clinton was the one thing that united Democrats and
Republicans over lunch time chats. She was unsuitable, and unfit for office. People voted not
necessarily for Trump, but against Clinton. Don't blame Trump for this result. Blame the democrats
and their poor candidates. So far I like his choice of cabinet members. Except for the banker
they are men that create wealth by providing work for talented people. Not something the Guardian
understands.
So your prime character witness for Hillary Clinton is.....Bill Clinton.
Good luck with that.
FYI mishandling protectively marked documents is wrongdoing, which James Comey testified that
she had. Had it been ANYBODY other than a presidential candidate their feet wouldn't have touched
the floor.
What the author fails to emphasize is the degree to which Dem. party 'insiders' like DWSchulz
and DBrazile and so on sabotaged their own nomination process by biasing the pre-primary and primary
contests in favor of Clinton in subtle and stupidly obvious ways.
Had this been a contest between Trump and B. Sanders, M. O'Malley, J. Biden, E. Warren, etc.
there would have been no Podesta emails to care hack, no home server to investigate, etc. By tipping
the scales in favor of Clinton early, parts of the Dem. party caused the current outcome.
I was dubious before, but I'm now actively concerned. This crop of Democrats and their deep
state cohorts are unhinged and dangerous. They see me and my families' lives as an externality
in their eventual war with Russia. As Phyrric a victory as there could possibly be. They are psychotic;
not only waging countless coups and intelligence operations abroad, but now in plain sight on
American soil. The mainstream media seems to invoke the spirit of Goebbels more vividly with each
passing day. Their disdain and manipulation of the general populace is chilling. They see us not
as people to be won-over, but as things to be manipulated, tricked and coerced. Nothing new for
politicians (particularity the opposition) - but the levels here are staggering.
January couldn't come soon enough - and I say that as strong critic of Trump.
There is an update to yesterday's Guardian article. Update: David Swanson interviewed Murray today,
and obtained additional information. Specifically, Murray told Swanson that: (1) there were two
American leakers ... one for the emails of the Democratic National Committee and one for the emails
of top Clinton aide John Podesta; (2) Murray met one of those leakers; and (3) both leakers are
American insiders with the NSA and/or the DNC, with no known connections to Russia.
"Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did"
Nailed it. If the Democrats had fielded someone who actually represented the people (and who
spoke the truth) instead of a corporate shill, the outcome would have been very different.
They had the ideal candidate in Sanders and they fucked him out of it. But have they learned
anything? I seriously doubt it.
Mrs Clinton is not blaming others. She never did. It's the CIA - backed by the 17 US intelligence
agencies - that's saying Russia interfered with the election process in the USA.
In UK as well, the MI6 said something similar a few weeks ago. Germany is also concerned about
the next elections in France and Germany. If any of this was true then it would be a serious threat
against democracy in Western countries.
So who's blaming who? Deep cheaters or bad loosers? The CIA could be wrong but is probably
correct this time. Trying to bury this unanimous call from western secret services under contempt
is significant by itself.
" It's the CIA - backed by the 17 US intelligence agencies - that's saying Russia interfered with
the election process in the USA. "
Way to parrot FAKE NEWS.
That is a COMPLETE LIE. Unless you honestly believe that agencies like the DEA and NASA's "intelligence"
conclusively found "proof" that does not exist. That TALKING POINT was a lie when CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN
originated it, and it is STILL a lie.
But hey, it's only wrong when the "bad guys" on the "other team" spread fake news and engage
in intellectual dishonesty, right? When it's the "good guys" it's just a case of the "ends justify
the means" and perfectly acceptable, right?
"Mrs Clinton is not blaming others. She never did."
Bullshit. Just last week she resurfaced (can't she grasp the idea of the graceful exit?) to
yammer on about the menace of "fake news". Because of course we all know that before 2016, all
American elections have been exercises in fair-mindedness and scrupulous devotion to truth.
It's funny how media simply refuses to admit that Trump did it.
Russians, Hilary, polar bears - none of them had anything to do with it - HE WON.
Live with it.
The clickbait headline is frustrating. No serious person is accusing Russia of having caused Clinton's
loss. Instead, serious people (including, thankfully, leading Republicans) are demanding that
we take a thoughtful and comprehensive look at the evidence that Russia intended to influence
the election. That's a necessary step for protecting our democracy and it's irresponsible to ascribe
political motives to that task.
There was a good article in The Intercept the other regarding the CIA's unsubstantiated (and subserviently
published by the media) claims of Russian interference - how it has essentially become a willy-waving
contest between the CIA and the FBI in the wake of the elections; how the CIA is an inherently
untrustworthy organisation and the media allowing "senior officials" to dictate the news with
empty leaks and no evidence (while shouting the loudest about fake news) is folly.
Very true. It takes an abysmal candidate to lose against (quoting Jimmy Dore here:) Donny Tinyhands.
It takes a special brand of dense to run
- for Wall Street (against reinstatement of Glass Steagall)
- for a direct military confrontation with nuclear power Russia (wich Clinton's pet-project of
no-fly zones in Syria would have signified)
- for trade deals (nobody bought Clinton was suddenly against that)
and expect the DEMOCRATIC base to turn out.
Jesus Christ, Donny ran to the left of Hillary on all three issues. Not that anyone trusts him
to keep any promise, but at least he didn't outright spit in the face of the people who want less
war, less neoliberalism and less Wall Street cronyism while running for election.
No Democratic candidate worth his/her name would have lost against Trump, not even if the Axis
of Evil (whoever that currently is) had hacked all their emails, photobooks and private porn-flicks,
in which they starred, and had them all run nonstop 24/7 on every screen on Earth.
I'm shocked!!! Aren't the Russians to blame for everything???
My t.v breaking, the rain outside, brexit, Donald trump, the Iraq war, the death of Jesus, those
damn Russians, nothing is safe around those monsters.
Hilarious
I am so sick and tired of hearing those whining elite democrats gone incessantly about white
males , the FBI , Putin , Russia , stupid red state citizens , etc., etc ..
I want say ' Shut the fuck up -- ..... and look in the bloody mirror ' .
I am a classic liberal .... always have been ..... always will be ...... and I don't know what
you would like to call these corrupt , elitist , contemporary democrats but you certainly can
not call them real liberals .
I call them designer democrats . They care only for their particular pet issues and they ongoing
pursuit of notions of their own superiority . They routinely generalize in highly sexist and racist
fashions and through the use of political correctness seek to silence all of their critics .
I , simply , loath them .
They sabotaged Bernie Sanders campaign . Bernie Sanders ..... the nicest , most caring man
to come along in American politics in the past 50 years . Not since , FDR , John and Robert Kennedy
have we seen such hope for average people .
But oh , no ..... Bernie was an outsider ..... not part of their corrupt , elite club . He
was a threat to their ongoing party . He had to go .
They didn't give a shit about what was good for the people . They only cared about themselves
and their exploitation of the Democratic Party and it's traditional status ..... and their vulgar
corruption of genuine liberalism for their own purposes .
The Democratic Party establishment will now undergo a long , long overdue cleansing . The Clintons
are the first to go as they should be . Two total career political scoundrels , if ever there
were any . Lies and secrecy were all that you ever got from them aside form the horrific repeal
of the 'Glass-Steggall Act ' and the Stock Trade Modernization Bill which lead to the licensing
of the financial elite to plunder the economy , ruin the lives of countless average Americans
and turn the economy into a complete casino .
Elitist to the core , they were .
Imagine an elite , spoon fed , self-interested urbanite like Hillary Clinton telling some poor
white male schmuck living in some small town , who for economic reasons has never had a good full
time time and works 3 temporary part-time jobs to pay the bills that he is privileged .
Bloody ridiculous --
Talk about overt sexism . Talk about overt racism .
It's these kinds of behaviours that doomed Hillary Clinton .
She only has herself to blame .
If she really had cared about average people she would have not sabotaged Bernie Sanders and
she would have stepped aside back in June when every poll indicated the she could not beat Trump
and that Bernie could beat him by 10 to 15 points .
Now , we the people are stuck with a Trump presidency ..... something which you can pretty
much be assured is going to be un mitigated disaster in ways that we can't even begin to imagine
yet .
Lord help us .
Good-bye Democratic Party elites ..... don't let the fucking door hit on the way out .
I wish I could say that it was nice knowing you but it wasn't .
Go off to your designer lives and pontificate about what is good for people ..... a subject
that you know little about and really don't give a damn .
Go back to Davos and party with the financial global elite for they are really your people
.... your kind . Certainly , average hardworking , genuinely liberal people are not .
Liberalism exists for all people not just the self-anointed few .
Have you noticed how recently the 'we are not racist and you are' left have started to use the
Chinese and Russians as convenient foreign bogeymen to scare the people with?
Awkward economic figures, blame the Chinese.
Awkward diplomatic issues or you lost a vote, blame the Russians.
The problem with this is that our media then amplifies these attacks on China and Russia, they
hear them, and they start to resent it and respond. And our future relations with two major world
powers are made worse than they needed to be.
A good article to counterbalance the reams of rubbish we are hearing in the US election post-mortem.
Anyone who had neural activity should have known that when you steal the candidacy, you certainly
won't get the votes. Clinton effectively handed the election to Trump by not having the humility,
humanity and honesty to admit defeat by Benie Sanders.
He was not a perfect choice, but he could have been a candidate who was everything that Trump
wasn't - uncorrupted, honest, and with a clearly thought out and principled agenda.
All Trump was facing was someone as entitled and establishment as he was,. but with less of
what passes for 'the human touch' across the pond.
There's always the possibility of course, that the US establishment realised Clinton's
blatant warmongering wasn't 'good for business'.
The Russians are no doubt aware that the US has to try and cut the Gordian knot - Washington
cannot face down China and Russia at the same time; and the two countries are mutually supportive
in the UN and are developing many economic projects together.
So maybe, they thought, we can get the Russkies 'on side', deal with China (ie. reduce
it to a 'client state'/ turn it into an ashtray) - and then move on Russia and grab all those
lovely resources freed up by global warming....
Seems to me like the Clinton agenda of big oil, big banks and alot of lies won the WH. Hillary's
big corporate donors are on Trumps transition team. Surely they didnt want her to win, since she
adopted Sanders regulatory, tax the wealthy platform, hence Clinton was duped with marketing strategy
which turned voters off, she was reduced to name calling over promotong policy...what did she
represent? Only her campaign volunteers knew, her message to the public was "dont vote for
Trump" which translates to, I could lose to him, vote for me!
The Podesta emails confirmed what many people already suspected and knew of Hillary and her
campaign. Those who were interested in reading them had to actually look for them, since MSM was
not reporting on them. It's not as if an avid MSNBC or CNN watcher was going to be exposed.
So, if you were seeking them out, A: you probably already suspected those things and B: you
weren't going to vote for Hillary to begin with.
It's hilarious how the major Left outlets (Washington Post) are now telling it's readers
how Russia is to blame for people voting against Hillary due to the Podesta emails, when they
didn't even report on the emails in the first place.
FINALLY sanity intrudes. For one article and one day. But hey , progress is progress. Trump will
NOT be what you think him to be. He will be far better. He will still do things you don't like,
but not REALLY bad things. :-)
There was no reason to vote for Clinton as the article says. She offered nothing except the
entitlement of HER. It wasn't enough. Thank The Gods. EVERYTHING about the system all
halfway decent people detest, is summed up in the figure of Hillary Clinton. And evidently
(and I stand to be corrected) she didn't even have the stones not to melt down on election night
and Podesta had to go out there and be a complete buffoon.
Trump might be an unknown but Clinton and her used up party were a complete known. Like
Donald said, she had 'experience', but it was all BAD 'experience'. Trump might not fix the
problems but at least he's going to try. Clinton didn't even see the problems.
she is a frail, withered old woman who needs to retire - def the wrong democrat choice, crazy -- Berni.S would have won if for them - he is far more sincere
Here is the key paragraph: "The displaced machinists... believe that free trade deals are
responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But
that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics"
at the expense of substance." Funny the author fails to notice that that describes to a T
Trump's campaign, and actually his whole life. That description applies to Trump several orders
of magnitude moreso than it applies to Hillary Clinton's life. If you think Trump is really interested
in bringing jobs, especially good paying jobs back, you are willfully blind.
"Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did"
Trump won, he played the game brilliantly to the rules (including the electoral college system),
Clinton lost (you can't win it for the opposition, you can just lose, and the Democrats didn't
put out their best hope) and Putin was irrelevant in terms of any interference (although maybe
Trump voters would rather the US develop a better relationship with Russia, but that's down to
Trump in playing that card).
This argument is as asinine as the one the author opposes. It was a collusion of events that
led to this result, including the failure of both parties to adapt to an evolving economic
and social climate over decades. The right wing hailing the collapse of liberalism as a result
of decades of liberal mismanagement conveniently forget their own parties have held the reins
for half that time, and failed just as miserably as the left....
It's quite bizarre to see "progressives" openly side with the military industrial complex,
which is threatened by a president elect weary of more warfare.
It's to be expected from career politicians like McCain who is kicking and screaming, but
it's shameful to see supposed liberally-minded people help spread the Red Scare storyline.
The Democrats are in full blown tantrum mode, throwing teddies out of their pram and spitting
dummies across the room, because their warmonger and deceitful candidate HRC, didn't win, that's
why there has been all this bad news nonsense about Putin and/or Russia since last week.
Obama has behaved dreadfully, first he or his office gets one of its poodles namely MI6 to
point the finger at Putin re cyberwar, which was swiftly followed by the International Olympic
Committee looking at Russia for 2012 Olympic games, the elections in the US and the Democrats
CIA coming out with unsubstantiated nonsense (funny how they never like, providing collaborative
evidence - on this or anything that supposedly Russia has done) then there is Syria, and Obama
and the Democrats were the cheerleader for regime change, because they have been out manoeuvred
in that sphere. All of it in less than a week.
If Obama, the administration, and the CIA were smart they would have realised that a concerted
effort to blame Putin / Russia would be seen for what it is - a liar and one of trying to discredit
both the outcome of the US elections, the dislike of HRC, and her association with Wall St. -
she raised more money for her campaign than Trump and Sanders put together (if the Democrats had
chosen Sanders, then they would have stood a chance) and that their hawk would not be in a position
to create WW111 - thank goodness. The Democrats deserved what they got.
This organ of the liberal media (no scare quotes required - it is socially liberal and economically
neoliberal), along with many others, dogmatically supported Clinton against Sanders to the point
of printing daily and ridiculous dishonesty, even going so far as to make out as if anyone who
supports any form of wealth redistribution is a racist, sexist, whitesplaining dude-bro.
Or more precisely the Superdelegates and the Democratic National Committee did. Her Goldman/Morgan
Stanley speechs were in 2013 ffs, they all knew she had form and was 'viewed as an insider' as
Obama put it in The New Yorker interview.
The election was close, and if one less thing had gone wrong for Hillary she would have won.
However I think an important thing that lost her the election was identity politics. She patronized
Afro-Americans and Hispanics, by tell them that because they are Trump-threatened minorities,
they should vote for her. In the same vein, gays and women were supposed to vote for her. But
what she was really telling these groups was that they should revel in their supposed victimhood,
which was not a great message.
Completely agreed! The onus for defeat belongs to the Democrat party leadership as well. Donald
Trump and Bernie Sanders both understood where the momentum of the election was headed before
anyone else did. The election was won and lost in the white blue collar Midwest. A place that
decided that diet corporatism is decidedly worse than a populist right wing extremist.
No one here believed the ridiculous about-face Hillary pulled on the question of the TPP.
I guarantee you Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
and perhaps Ohio and Iowa.
"Our self-image as the world's greatest democracy...." Well, speaking for myself and plenty
of other Americans, I never said anything like that about us. In fact, like a lot of people I
wish we would stick to our own business, quit trying to be the world's cop, and cease meddling
in other countries' affairs.
If we do that, then I could care less about our image or what the rest of the world thinks.
Let some other country be the "leader of the Free World." Who died and left the US in charge,
anyway? Not one war we have fought since WWII has been worth the price of one drop of American
blood.
Assuming that it really was the Russians who done it, I guess they had a better game plan
than the Saudis. I consider the Russians to have done us a favor of sorts by exposing Hillary's
secret Wall Street speeches and the machinations of the DNC. Her 'deplorables' comment was
every bit as telling as Mitt Romney's '47%'. We really needed to know about her 'public versus
private positions', even if it only confirmed what everybody already knew. I am not 100% sure
the system made the worst choice in raising up Donald Trump.
And even so, if it takes four years of Trump to remove the people who thought Hillary was a
good candidate from power in the Democratic Party, it may work out for the best in the long run.
And if it takes four years of Trump to show the people who voted for Trump that Republican ideologues
can only make their problems worse, so be it. It's mostly the hubris that amuses me at this point.
They thought they were the pros. They had the money. They had the ground game. All they did wrong
was to preselect and preordain a candidate nobody wanted.
abuses women, advances the cause of racism, attacks women's rights, is xenophobic
The American voters heard a steady stream of these arguments. Some may have simply ignored
them. Others took them into consideration, but concluded that they wanted drastic change enough
to put them aside. White women decided that Trump's comments, while distasteful, were things they'd
heard before.
Reliance on the sanctity of racial and gender pieties was a mistake. Not everyone treats
these subjects as the holiest of holies. The people who would be most swayed by those arguments
never would have voted for Trump anyways.
Colin Powell did not advise Clinton to do that, and even if he did she was a fool to take his
advice when her boss Obama explicitly told her not to keep a private server. Colin Powell
said Clinton destroys everything she touches with hubris. Seeing as how she destroyed the democrat
"blue wall" and also had low turnout which hurt democrats down the ticket I agree.
Zero evidence other than "he said, she said" regarding any involvement of Russian espionage agencies
in the U.S. elections but the left, incredulous once the result didn't go their way, are now clinging
to anything to divert attention from the issues that HRC ignored and Trump embraced.
All this hysteria about the USA and Russia finally working together than apart doesn't
help either for it appears that the [neoliberal] lefties want a perpetual war rather than peace.
The CIA being outraged about a foreign state intervening in an election is quite funny. They
have intervened so many times, especially in Latin America, to install puppet regimes.
As for hacking... does anybody believe the CIA has never hacked anybody?
Anyway, had the emails not existed, there would have been nothing with which to help Trump.
The Democrats have only themselves to blame. Bernie Sanders or ANY other candidate without the
Clintons baggage could have done a better job f beating Trump. They wanted Hillary at all cost;
they lost!
A major threat to liberty is the assault on the right to discuss political issues, seek out alternative
information sources, and promote dissenting ideas and causes such as non-interventionism in foreign
and domestic affairs. If this ongoing assault on free speech succeeds, then all of our liberties
are endangered.
One of the most common assaults on the First Amendment is the attempt to force public policy organizations
to disclose their donors. Regardless of the intent of these laws, the effect is to subject supporters
of controversial causes to harassment, or worse. This harassment makes other potential donors afraid
to support organizations opposing a popular war or defending the rights of an unpopular group.
Many free speech opponents support laws and regulations forbidding activist or educational organizations
from distributing factual information regarding a candidate's positions for several months before
an election. The ban would apply to communications that do not endorse or oppose any candidate. These
laws would result in the only sources of information on the candidate's views being the campaigns
and the media.
Recently the Federal Election Commission (FEC) rejected a proposal to add language exempting books,
movies, and streaming videos from its regulations. The majority of FEC commissioners apparently believe
they should have the power, for example, to ban Oliver Stone's biography of Edward Snowden, since
it was released two months before the election and features clips of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
discussing Snowden.
The latest, and potentially most dangerous, threat to the First Amendment is the war on "fake
news." Those leading the war are using a few "viral" Internet hoaxes to justify increased government
regulation - and even outright censorship - of Internet news sites. Some popular websites, such as
Facebook, are not waiting for the government to force them to crack down on fake news.
Those calling for bans on "fake news" are not just trying to censor easily-disproved Internet
hoaxes. They are working to create a government-sanctioned "gatekeeper" (to use Hillary Clinton's
infamous phrase) with the power to censor any news or opinion displeasing to the political establishment.
None of those wringing their hands over fake news have expressed any concern over the fake news stories
that helped lead to the Iraq War. Those fake news stories led to the destabilizing of the Middle
East, the rise of ISIS, and the deaths of millions.
The war on "fake news" has taken a chilling turn with efforts to label news and opinion sites
of alternative news sources as peddlers of Russian propaganda. The main targets are critics of US
interventionist foreign policy, proponents of a gold standard, critics of the US government's skyrocketing
debt, and even those working to end police militarization. All have been smeared as anti-American
agents of Russia.
Just last week, Congress passed legislation creating a special committee, composed of key federal
agencies, to counter foreign interference in US elections. There have also been calls for congressional
investigations into Russian influence on the elections. Can anyone doubt that the goal of this is
to discredit and silence those who question the mainstream media's pro-welfare/warfare state propaganda?
The attempts to ban "fake news;" smear antiwar, anti-Federal Reserve, and other pro-liberty movements
as Russian agents; and stop independent organizations from discussing a politician's record before
an election are all parts of an ongoing war on the First Amendment. All Americans, no matter their
political persuasion, have a stake in defeating these efforts to limit free speech.
dirtscratcher
Snνpιir_Ag_Obair ,
Dec 13, 2016 11:45 AM
For the MSM to declare war on 'fake news' they would have to shoot themselves in the head (instead
of the foot). A delightful idea, now that I think about it.
Traditional left is equal protection under the law, against imperial war and, most importantly,
pro-justice for the working and middle classes (i.e., against off-shoring mfg, etc.).
All this nonsense PC and identity politics is designed to divide the left (the working class)
on the core issues.
from my Easter European point of view (after a decade spent in the USSA) - Democrats seem much
more Stalininst and totalitarian than Republicans. $hitlery really reminds me of former prez Milosevic's
ugly wife (she was also politically involved and as totalitarian as $hitlery)
They are not "pro-immigration", they are against an intrusive police state that use illegal immigration
as an excuse to adopt artificial measures. Do you find logic that in many states you have in parallel
1) Welfare for refugees & illegal immigrants
2) Other government services as well
3) Money use to crack down on business with spot checks to see if they hire illegal immigrants
4) Money use to increase the patrols along the border or even build a wall
5) Naturalization of illegal immigrants after a few years of residence
Usually when the media organize a debate it's always rigged
On one side you will have the guy/woman who say that Westerners are selfish because they need
to offer more to those who arrive and adapt themselves to the new migrants
On the other side the guy/woman who will say that we are at war with Islam, that they have
wage a war on us with this invasion and that some asses need to be kick out overthere, Assad,
Ghadafi, Iran, you can name them, martial law is necessary to defend ourself by bombing them.
The fake news accusation is possible to counter. ... Let them call you a 'Fake News' website all
they want. ..
Post and publish well researched and truthful news and then let MSM do your advertising for
you. ... Call yourself "Fake News - 'Something'" and let the MSM lying fuckers send you traffic.
When they say fake news said this, that or something else and people search you out to hear all
your 'fake news' and discover your reports are more on the mark than all the fictional gibberish
MSM is trying to feed them, MSM loses it's audience even more.
Truth has a way of bubbling to the top. ..... Just look at the story of ZeroHedge.
Send in the lawyers if you have to.
Live Hard, Sue The Deep Pockets Of MSM When They Lie, Die Free
Enough with "the Russians" already. This "Russian Disinformation" and "Russian Hacking" stuff
is getting more ridiculous by the day.
First, don't let the irony escape you that most, if not all, of the pundits breathlessly blaming
the Russians for "fake news" and "election interference" are the very ones who were saying that Hillary
Clinton was a shoe-in for president. They're the ones who were providing her campaign with questions
in advance, and allowing her people to approve/disapprove of articles.
Secondly, many of the entities blamed for spreading "Russian propaganda" were the ones with the
audacity to tell the truth about the Clinton crime family and spread knowledge of the information
released by Wikileaks. Obviously, I'm not including
those Macedonian college kids in this, but keep in mind that they weren't doing it for the Russians
they were doing it to make money.
This isn't about the Russians at all, which anyone with half a brain realizes is absolutely ridiculous.
Here's what this really is.
This is a war on the Trump presidency. It's an attempted coup.
Maybe it's even another effort to outright steal the presidency from Trump. Maybe there's someone
with a lot of money to throw into this "OMG THE RUSSIANS" rhetoric who really hates Russia and who
really wanted Hillary Clinton to be the President. Maybe his name rhymes with "Doros." I don't know
this for sure, but it's at least a more likely story than "The Russians" hacking our election and
deliberately spreading propaganda.
It's important to note that the MSM lost every single bit of their remaining credibility during
the last election and they're desperate to get it back. It reminds me of a high school kid who gets
caught doing something she shouldn't, who then makes up stories about another group of kids to get
people talking about them instead of her. The MSM can't accept the fact that Hillary Clinton lost,
despite their dishonest but enthusiastic efforts to steal the election for her. They'll
collude with whoever they have to in order to become relevant again.
Do you really have any doubt that they'll collude with whoever they have to in order to become
relevant again?
About "The Russians"
The whole plotline about "the Russians" really took off when the
Washington Post published an article listing a couple hundred websites as Russian "fake news"
sites. (I know the owners of quite a few of these sites personally -as in, we've shared meals and
wine together and I can tell you, they're as American as apple pie." The Washington Post later
backtracked on the accusations but did not retract the article.
Except that when you consider that evidence by definition is definitive and the NYT admits everything
they have is circumstantial, then, doesn't that completely negates the headline? The article is sheer
speculation, just like the WaPo article that named the "fake news" sites.
What's more, the FBI completely disagrees with the CIA, and they've been very public about it.
They don't believe that there is well, evidence . I'll quote
from WaPo here .
The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences
between the FBI and the CIA The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible
evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences
from behavior.
"The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards - can we prove this in court," one of
the officials said. "The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment
calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means 'we're pretty
damn sure.' It doesn't mean they can prove it in court."
Give me a break. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should never, ever believe anything the
Washington Post refers to as investigative journalism. They have no idea what proof or evidence even
means.
There's a psy-op, all right, but it isn't "the Russians" perpetrating it.
It's the CIA (keep in mind that psyops is part of their job) working hand in hand with the MSM.
You just have to laugh at some of these headlines and quotes.
For your entertainment, enjoy the following round-up of headlines promoting the "Blame Russia"
sentiment.
Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House (
source )
House passes intelligence bill enhancing efforts against Russia (
source )
Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?" (
CNN )
Fake News, Russians, and Election Reversal (
Town Hall )
A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories (
NY Times )
DID RUSSIAN AGENTS INFLUENCE THE U.S. ELECTION WITH FAKE NEWS? (
Vanity
Fair)
Experts Say Russian Propaganda Helped Spread Fake News During Election (
NPR )
Media Wakes Up To Russia's 'Fake News' Only After It Is Applied Against Hillary (
Forbes )
And then, have an eyeroll at some very silly quotes
From an interview on NPR:
"But let's remember, this was a very close vote where just, you know, a few tens of thousands
of votes in a few states ended up making the difference. So I don't know, if you believe that
the kind of information that crashes through all of our social media accounts affects how we think
and potentially how we vote, I think you would conclude that this kind of stuff does matter."
(
source )
From the NY Times:
"RT [Russia Today] often seems obsessed with the United States, portraying life there as hellish.
On the day President Obama spoke at the
Democratic National Convention , for example, it emphasized scattered demonstrations rather
than the speeches. It defends the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, as an underdog
maligned by the established news media." (
source )
From a secret mystery source on CNN:
"There was no way that any one could have walked out of there with that the evidence and conclude
that the Russian government was not behind this." (
source )
From CBS:
Responding to intelligence officials' report that Russia
tried to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of President-elect Donald Trump,
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Arizona) on Sunday said he doesn't know
what to make of Mr. Trump's dismissal of the issue.
"I don't know what to make of it because it's clear the Russians interfered," he told CBS'
"Face the Nation." "Whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to
elect a certain candidate, I think that's a subject of investigation. But facts are stubborn things.
They did hack into this campaign." (
source )
Politico reported:
"Donald Trump's insult-laced dismissal of reports that the CIA believes Russia hacked the 2016
election to help him is rattling a spy community already puzzled over how to gain the ear and
trust of the incoming president." (
source )
While some of the efforts are laughable, the end result could be incredibly serious.
And by serious, I mean devastating. It could result in civil war. It could result in World War
III.
Despite the inadvertent hilarity, this is a blatant effort to keep President-Elect Trump out of
the White House and to silence the opposition.
We learned that some people will do anything to remain in power.
We're watching them do anything right now.
Never has an election been so vehemently contested. Never has our country been so divided. If
the election results are cast aside, what do you really think will happen? Do you think Trump supporters
will just sigh and accept it?
And what about Russia?
Just a few months ago, we were
on the verge of war with them . By scapegoating "The Russians," if this psy-op is successful,
and Trump is kept out of office, what do you think is going to happen with tensions between the two
countries?
Enough with "the Russians" already. The real conspiracy is happening right here in America.
Glenn Greenwald
notes that in the face of Trump and Brexit (which were
primarily caused by
economic
policies which have created
massive inequality ) the Democratic National committee is trying to blame everybody and everything
but their own status quo policies and candidates which rig the system for the fatcats and hurt the
little guy:
The indisputable fact is that prevailing institutions of authority in the West, for decades,
have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security
of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade,
Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the
poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims
of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much - when they caused a ruckus
- and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious,
global game of meritocracy.
***
A
short, incredibly insightful, and now more relevant than ever post-Brexit Facebook note by
the Los Angeles Times's Vincent Bevins wrote that "both Brexit and Trump_vs_deep_state are the very, very
wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years." Bevins
went on: "Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all
the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are
watching in horror as voters revolt."
For those who tried to remove themselves from the self-affirming, vehemently pro-Clinton elite
echo chamber of 2016, the warning signs that Brexit screechingly announced were not hard to see.
Two short
passages
from
a Slate interview I gave in July summarized those grave dangers: that opinion-making elites
were so clustered, so incestuous, so far removed from the people who would decide this election
- so contemptuous of them - that they were not only incapable of seeing the trends toward Trump
but were unwittingly accelerating those trends with their own condescending, self-glorifying behavior.
***
The warning lights were flashing in neon for a long time, but they were in seedy places that
elites studiously avoid. The few people who purposely went to those places and listened,
such as Chris Arnade , saw and heard them loud and clear. The ongoing failure to take heed
of this intense but invisible resentment and suffering guarantees that it will fester and strengthen.
This was the last paragraph of my July article on the Brexit fallout:
Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, [elites]
are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to
delegitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully
address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions
that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus
cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures there will be
many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future.
***
Democrats have already begun flailing around trying to blame anyone and everyone they can
find - everyone except themselves - for last night's crushing defeat of their party.
You know the drearily predictable list of their scapegoats: Russia, WikiLeaks, James Comey,
Jill Stein, Bernie Bros, The Media, news outlets (including, perhaps especially, The Intercept)
that sinned by reporting negatively on Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks that what happened
last night in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan can be blamed on any of that
is drowning in self-protective ignorance so deep that it's impossible to express in words.
***
Put simply, Democrats knowingly chose to nominate a deeply unpopular, extremely vulnerable,
scandal-plagued candidate, who - for very good reason - was widely perceived to be a protector
and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption. It's astonishing
that
those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge
and scary gamble - that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone
and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate - are now
the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating
her anyway.
But that's just basic blame shifting and self-preservation. Far more significant is what
this shows about the mentality of the Democratic Party. Just think about who they nominated:
someone who - when she wasn't dining with Saudi monarchs and being feted in Davos by tyrants
who gave million-dollar checks - spent the last several years piggishly running around to Wall
Street banks and major corporations cashing in with $250,000 fees for 45-minute secret speeches
even though she had already become unimaginably rich with book advances while her husband already
made tens of millions playing these same games. She did all that without the slightest apparent
concern for how that would feed into all the perceptions and resentments of her and the Democratic
Party as corrupt, status quo-protecting, aristocratic tools of the rich and powerful: exactly
the worst possible behavior for this post-2008-economic-crisis era of globalism and destroyed
industries.
***
Trump vowed to destroy the system that elites love (for good reason) and the masses hate
(for equally good reason), while Clinton vowed to manage it more efficiently. That, as Matt
Stoller's
indispensable article in The Atlantic three weeks ago documented, is the conniving choice
the Democratic Party made decades ago: to abandon populism and become the party of technocratically
proficient, mildly benevolent managers of elite power. Those are the cynical, self-interested
seeds they planted, and now the crop has sprouted.
Indeed, the Dems re-elected Mrs. Status Quo Nancy Pelosi as minority leader. And Pelosi
claims :
I don't think people want a new direction.
Similarly, outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid
says
:
I don't think the Democratic Party is in that big of trouble.
I mean, if Comey kept his mouth shut, we would have picked up a couple more Senate seats and
we probably would have elected Hillary.
Of course, the whole claim that Russia hacked the U.S. election
is baseless as
is the whole
hysterical
claim that Russian propaganda swung the election.
But it's not just America
After Brexit and Italexit with a potential
Frexit looming on the horizon the status quo in Europe is also trying to shift attention (look,
squirrel!) from their failed policies to boogeymen.
For example, European leaders
are
also
claiming that Russian propaganda is interfering with European values.
And Germany's incredibly unpopular Social Democratic party is
claiming
that Russia might hack its election.
A former British cabinet member
alleges that Russian hackers "probably" swayed the Brexit vote.
And Washington Post national security reporter at Adam Entous told BBC this week that a CIA official
claims that Russia hacked
the Brexit vote, and the vote in Ukraine (starting around 1:09:58).
What's next the status quo starts blaming their electoral losses on little green men?
"... What is ALREADY going on with Trump, Dems, Russia is fascinating and he is NOT EVEN SWORN in yet!!! WOW! The war mongers are REALLY panicking . Anti commie its the new politically correct viewpoint . ..."
"... adding: "a party of buck-passing juveniles that have no vision for the future " ..."
"... Republicans have an agenda. It's terrible but they have one. Democrats represent rule by the professional class, including bankers. That's it. Publicly, they're for rainbows, good things and bringing people together. ..."
"... Several of my Democratic friends are simultaneously convinced that Trump is a Russian stooge and outraged that he won't listen to his daily national security briefings. ..."
"... No. First, access was granted by .. Hillary and Podesta and their own idiocy ( her with the server, him with the pas*word) . IMO we are entitled to know what was in the emails. It certainly did not change my vote nor did it change the vote of anyone I know. ..."
"... I think both Clinton and Trump would be terrible presidents but it has been obvious since she lost that Hillary is unable to accept this to the point of mental illness. First she tried to have her proxies do some damage and when that did not work, she counters with this. ..."
"... The anti-Trump tapes . And the one with former Miss Universe is she an American now? Do you call that 'foreign' intervention? "Former Miss Universe tries to steal election for HIllary!!!" ..."
Hillary: " Where is Steiner?!?!?!? " I don't envy whoever's gonna have to take her aside
and tell her it's really over. Poor Bill
If you boil down what Clinton and the Clintonites are saying, Putin stole the election from her,
and Trump is a Russian agent of influence. The first is a casus belli , and the second is
treason. The first demands a response at the very least of recalling our Ambassador from Moscow.
That hasn't happened, which tells you that the people responsible for such things (Obama) don't take
Clinton's casus belli seriously. The second calls for a solution "by any means necessary"
(exactly as Clinton's previous claim, that Trump is a fascist, does).
"By any means necessary" would include anything from a
von Stauffenberg solution
(no doubt the CIA has a wet team) all the way up to a coup. (This last is hard to imagine, since
a coup demands occupying physical space with armed force. Who could Clinton call on?)
So what the Clintonites have settled on is trying get the Electoral College to reverse the election.
I can't imagine this coming to anything, since the majority of the electors - since Trump won the
election - are Republicans
If I were a Trump voter, and a bunch of electors, on data that is this uncertain, and which
even if it is true amounts to "telling the truth about Hillary and Democrats" were to give the
election to Clinton I would be furious.
I would consider it a violation of democratic norms: an overturning of a valid election result
because elites didn't like the result.
And while I'm not saying they should, or I would (nor that I wouldn't), many will feel that
if the ballot box is not respected, then violence is the only solution.
If faithless electors give the election to Clinton, there will be a LOT of violence as a result,
and there might even be a civil war.
Ian is Canadian; then again, installing Clinton in office by retroactively changing the
election rules is a "cross the Rubicon" moment. At least in Maine, I wouldn't picture a Civil War,
but I would picture shattered windows in every Democrat headquarters in the state, and then we'd
go on from there. Welsh concludes:
This is where Nazi/Fascist/Hitler/Camps rhetoric leaves you. Nothing is off the table.
Either decide you mean it, or calm down and take shit off the table that is going to get a
lot of people dead if you pull it off.
Exactly.
"CIA admits it broke into Senate computers; senators call for spy chief's ouster" [
McClatchy (Re Silc)]. Fooled ya! From 2013. I'm so old I remember when anonymous CIA soruces
weren't always revered as truth-tellers.
What is ALREADY going on with Trump, Dems, Russia is fascinating and he is NOT EVEN SWORN
in yet!!! WOW! The war mongers are REALLY panicking . Anti commie its the new politically correct
viewpoint .
Yes, there is something weird going on with these stories that the CIA appears to be spreading.
MOA is saying the MSN is falsely reporting China is flying nukes it doesn't have in planes all
over the place. Just a guess but bet this too comes from CIA
China threatening us with nukes and Russia stealing our elections. The fake news B.S. quotient
is off the richter scale. Makes you yearn for the good old days when all we had to worry about
was WMD in Iraq.
except Putin & his dominant party in the Russian gov are not Commie, Putin is a right-wing
authoritarian. I suppose Putin, Trump, & HClinton could each be labeled within the right-wing
authoritarian category.
politicalcompass certaintly categorized HClinton & Trump as right-wing authoritarian, & HClinton
was closer to Trump on the graph, than she was to Sanders (left-wing libertarian)
I'd expect this 'reds under the bed' fear mongering from Fox News, not from WaPo. Guess the
Wapo is to the Dems what Fox News is to the GOP. Clarifying election, indeed.
Really? Check out where Saints Jack and Bobby were during the red scare craze of the 50's.
Freedom of speech wasn't their pet project. I know but "Dallas 1963", but there whereabouts in
the 1950's aren't the product of conspiracy theory. For the fetishists, their red hunter status
has to be ignored. Bobby was a full fledged inquisitor for McCarthy.
The Dems are throwing on the golden oldies in an attempt to relive the glory of the past.
what drives me crazy about the Russian hacking conspiracy theory is that there actually WAS
a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election, as carefully documented by Greg Palast and Brad Friedman.
It consisted of the crosscheck purge of the voting rolls, voter suppression and vapour voting
machines. That no Democrat is talking about this tells me that the party is done for.
Good points, and yes, that ticks me off as well. The D Party continues to sit on their thumbs
and do bupkiss about real voting issues while issuing Red Scare Menace 3.0.
Why bother voting Democratic? They're not going to do one blasted thing for the proles. They
haven't for years and years.
Republicans have an agenda. It's terrible but they have one. Democrats represent rule by
the professional class, including bankers. That's it. Publicly, they're for rainbows, good things
and bringing people together.
Yes, the tin foil hat theory is that this all stems from the situation in Syria The CIA's aka
HRC"s Syria regime change is a failure. The CIA had high hopes, now dashed. The only chance for
war with Russia is to get HRC installed. The recount failed. So, Plan B.
There is a politico article from the wake of the 2014 disaster where elite Dems promised Hillary
would save them. An incredible amount of money, time, and reputations was put behind a loser,
not just a loser but a person who lost to Donald Trump. Anyone who donated any thing to the Clinton
effort should be crazy about Clinton Inc's conduct, so Clinton Inc needs to blame everyone but
themselves.
Let's just say for the sake of argument that the CIA and the Democrats have massively overplayed
their hand in these accusations against Russia. I suspect it wouldn't take all that much to bring
it all down like a house of cards, with a major scandal ensuing in its wake. Let's say that the
anonymous CIA source, assuming it was legit, has badly misrepresented what evidence, circumstantial
or otherwise, is there. They're "all-in" on this now. People will have to resign or get fired
within these organizations after Trump takes over because of this, wouldn't they? If their careers
are on the line, who knows what they'll resort to in order to save their own skins? Maybe this
play at flipping the Electoral College was the game all along.
The Clintons were abysmal candidates before emails were uttered. Hillary significantly under
performed Gore in 2000 in New York by a significant margin despite a candidate too extreme for
Peter King.
Every doubt about Hillary's electability was based in fact and OBVIOUS to anyone who spent
more than half a second taking the election seriously. Every Hillary primary voter who isn't a
already spectacular crook failed as citizens by putting forth a clown such a Hillary. There are
no ways around this.
Hillary just lost to Donald Trump because "liberals" are too childish to take politics seriously,
even her centrist supporters should have seen she is a clod. Of course, most centrists would stop
being centrists if they possessed critical thinking skills.
This is no less than trying to latch onto something that excuses their failures as citizens
and human beings.
Several of my Democratic friends are simultaneously convinced that Trump is a Russian stooge
and outraged that he won't listen to his daily national security briefings.
In light of the risible 'fake news' meme and NC's invocation of media related laws, here's
a reminder of another law you may find useful
Sturgeon's Law .
Sci fi writer Theodore Sturgeon was told by a critic that 90% of scifi was crap and he retorted
that 90% of everything was crap. You just need to know how to find the good stuff.
Seems like this fake 'fake news' news (c) 2016 is primed to blow up right in the face
of entities like The Times, as more and more people see that half of what they purvey
as news is as likely to be B.S. as anything coming from an alternative, or even fringe website.
What's more is that they are driving the point home that their news stories can't
be trusted, with the very same 'fake news' story they are trying to use to emphasize how comparatively
real their news is. The irony levels are off the scale. It's uncharted territory.
In order to accept this is any kind of deal ( I do not support Trump nor did I vote for him)
there are so many hidden premises you have to accept it is laughable
First let's assume that Putin himself donned a Mr Robot Hoodie and hacked the server and printed
the emails and gave them to Assange who was sitting next to him.
SO WHAT?
Is the American public so gullible? Was that somehow unfair?
No. First, access was granted by .. Hillary and Podesta and their own idiocy ( her with the
server, him with the pas*word) . IMO we are entitled to know what was in the emails. It certainly
did not change my vote nor did it change the vote of anyone I know.
It's not like all the anti-Trump tapes etc were not strategically timed to influence the election.
IS it OK if Americans do it?
Second, all they could do with Trump was run past business stuff. He did not have a public
policy record to reveal the man was not in government service.. she was. My view is that if the
public was so influenced by the emails, which had some absolutely appalling details, none of which
were forged, then they were entitled to be ,even if Hitler himself had done the hacking.
It is disheartening that , less than a month after the NYT said maybe we were biased and we
promise to be more careful they are again acting as propagandists and not pointing out all the
absurd hidden premises that must be accepted to manufacture an issue. I am still waiting for the
Times report on her "fake news" that she was under fire- obviously a story designed to influence
primary voters.
I think both Clinton and Trump would be terrible presidents but it has been obvious since she
lost that Hillary is unable to accept this to the point of mental illness. First she tried to
have her proxies do some damage and when that did not work, she counters with this.
I never recall anyone saying that the Democratic party has an absolute right to control the
flow of information in the world. AS much as i despise Trump and his stone age cabinet, I am starting
to think he is less pathological about this than her. Perhaps if this latest gambit fails she
will go the way of Lady Macbeth,
The anti-Trump tapes . And the one with former Miss Universe is she an American now? Do you call that 'foreign'
intervention? "Former Miss Universe tries to steal election for HIllary!!!"
Beverly,
=== quote ===
Just the fact that Trump has now said he thinks the CIA's cyber forensics team is the same group that tries to determine the
nuclear capacity of other countries is itself scaryand revealing. He doesn't recognize and obvious distinctions even about
incredibly important things, doesn't understand the concept of expertise, and can't distinguish between important and unimportant
things.
=== end of quote ===
Two points:
1. After Iraq WMD false claim CIA as agency had lost a large part of its credibility, because it is clear that it had succumbed
to political pressure and became just a pocket tool in the dirty neocon political games. At this time the pressure was from
neocons in Bush administration. Don't you think that it is possible that this is the case now too ?
2. It's not the job of CIA to determine who and how hacked DNC computers or any other computers in the USA. CIA mandate
is limited to foreign intelligence and intelligence aggregation and analysis. It is job of FBI and NSA, especially the latter,
as only NSA has technical means to trace from where really the attack had come, if it was an attack.
So any CIA involvement here is slightly suspect and might point to some internal conflicts within Obama administration.
It is unclear why Obama had chosen CIA Also as CIA and State Department are closely linked as CIA operatives usually use diplomatic
cover that request looks a little bit disingenuous as Hillary used to work for State Department. In this case one of the explanation
might be that it can be attributed to the desire to create a smoke screen and shield Clintons from pressure by rank-and-file
Hillary supporter (and donors) to explain the devastating defeat in electoral college votes against rather weak, really amateur
opponent.
The Nuremberg Court Trials rulings only apply to 'them' not 'US'
Sundus Saleh, an Iraqi woman, claims that former President George W. Bush and other government
officials committed the crime of aggression when they launched the Iraq War, an international
war crime that was banned at the Nuremberg Trials.
Saleh filed her lawsuit in March 2013 in San Francisco federal court. The court ruled in December
2014 that the defendants in the lawsuit - George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza
Rice, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz - were immune from civil proceedings based on the Westfall
Act, a federal law which immunizes government officials from lawsuits for conduct taken within
the lawful scope of their authority. Saleh appealed the decision in June 2015.
The Ninth Circuit has not indicated when it will issue an order with respect to Saleh's appeal.
Nuremberg trial also prosecuted Judges unt Doctors.
"... Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to WikiLeaks. ..."
Apparently CIA has finally figured out that their asses are toast. CIA has fed a constant stream
of half truths and outright rabrications to US MSM and are now turning on WaPo. CIA also has killer
drones and military powers they have no right to exercise. Apparently the rats are turning on each
other. Let the trials and subsequent executions begin.
LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC
However, the FBI reported they did not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Russian
Government did such a thing. The POST reported that a secret CIA report had been presented to lawmakers
on Capitol Hill allegedly saying there was information linking Russia to the election hackings in
favor of President-elect Trump.
Now, the CIA is saying the POST got it wrong in fact, they allegedly lied. At this point I think
the whole thing is a mess, and I don't see how the American people can decipher the "real" news from
the "fake" news.
Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading
national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who
is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic
National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to WikiLeaks.
Worth noting that Ukrainian associations have been deeply embedded in most large US cities
since the early 1950s. Not unlike the AIPAC propaganda wing that pulls the strings in the
US government.
And having a KNOWN perjurer (James Clapper) presiding over this farce
of an "investigation" is just the icing on the cake.
"Senator Wyden
then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on
millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No,
sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly.
There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but
not wittingly."
Then it was revealed by Edward Snowden that, why yes, in fact the
NSA does collect data on HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HERE IN
AMERICA (probably all) and not "unwittlingly"...on fucking
purpose...snaring both Obama and Clapper in their fabricated stories
otherwise known as lies.
Clapper perjured himself before Congress,
a felony.
The next month, a Senate subcommittee launched an investigation
and found no proof of any subversive activity. Moreover, many of
McCarthy's Democratic and Republican colleagues, including
President Dwight Eisenhower, disapproved of his tactics ("I will
not get into the gutter with this guy," the president told his
aides). Still, the senator continued his so-called Red-baiting
campaign. In 1953, at the beginning of his second term as
senator, McCarthy was put in charge of the Committee on
Government Operations, which allowed him to launch even more
expansive investigations of the alleged communist infiltration
of the federal government. In hearing after hearing, he
aggressively interrogated witnesses in what many came to
perceive as a blatant violation of their civil rights. Despite a
lack of any proof of subversion, more than 2,000 government
employees lost their jobs as a result of McCarthy's
investigations.
"Have you no sense of decency, sir?"
In April 1954, Senator McCarthy turned his attention to
"exposing" the supposed communist infiltration of the armed
services. Many people had been willing to overlook their
discomfort with McCarthyism during the senator's campaign
against government employees and others they saw as "elites";
now, however, their support began to wane. Almost at once, the
aura of invulnerability that had surrounded McCarthy for nearly
five years began to disappear. First, the Army undermined the
senator's credibility by showing evidence that he had tried to
win preferential treatment for his aides when they were drafted.
Then came the fatal blow: the decision to broadcast the
"Army-McCarthy" hearings on national television. The American
people watched as McCarthy intimidated witnesses and offered
evasive responses when questioned. When he attacked a young Army
lawyer, the Army's chief counsel thundered, "Have you no sense
of decency, sir?" The Army-McCarthy hearings struck many
observers as a shameful moment in American politics.
The Fall of Joseph McCarthy
By the time the hearings were over, McCarthy had lost most of
his allies. The Senate voted to condemn him for his
"inexcusable," "reprehensible," "vulgar and insulting" conduct
"unbecoming a senator." He kept his job but lost his power, and
died in 1957 at the age of 48.
"... The authenticity of the content of the hacked/leaked emails were never in doubt. Several DNC lackeys, including the chair of the democratic national committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, were fired on the grounds of bias, fraud and even conspiracy to commit criminal acts. ..."
"... Their desperation makes them very dangerous, especially while still ostensibly in charge of many elements of gov't and, of course, the entrenched MSM. ..."
"... So can we now accept that the Russians hacked Hillarys server? Seems before the election, the Demorats kept trying to deny it happened. ..."
"... What about the DHS trying to Hack the Georgia Election Computer System? ..."
"... Not just gossip, an un-named official (not an official statement by the department head) stating with "confidence" (not evidence), off the record but reported in every major fish-wrap, that Russian hackers were interfered in our elections, AND inferring that they knew the motives/intentions behind this conjured crime. ..."
"... If there were ANY evidence, the Dems would have paraded it out in front of us loudly and proudly the second they found it. Instead, they prefer making jacka$$es out of themselves (and our country) with innuendo-based trial balloons, as everyone in the world capable of critical thinking laughs at them (us). ..."
"... So we are still "shooting the messenger"? Nobody wants to discuss the content of the Podesta emails, even though they have not been discredited in any way. ..."
Russians did not affect my votes against HRC. HRC did: Whitewater. Mena. Foster. Waco. OKC.
Ruby Ridge. Her continuing career and liberty is proof of a Conspiracy.
Gucifer said, that it was open. The sysadmin said, that it was unmodified Windows business
suite server.
Who needs more to get in, as a standard MS product? I am convinced every intelligence
agency on this earth (yes, Zimbabwian agency as well), has a copy of all emails there.
The authenticity of the content of the hacked/leaked emails were never in doubt. Several
DNC lackeys, including the chair of the democratic national committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
were fired on the grounds of bias, fraud and even conspiracy to commit criminal acts.
Hillary Clinton herself can be indicted on lying under oath to Congress, conspiracy to commit
criminal acts (Paying agitators to assault the supporters of her opponents), election fraud (See
Veritas), contravening the Federal Records Act, Improper handling of classified documents, and
I won't even go into Pizzagate, Saudi funding and the Clinton Foundation, or I'll be here typing
all night.
Where it gets interesting (actually vomit-inducing disgusting), just as Julian Assange alluded,
is inside the Podesta emails that colludes with Huma Abedin's dirty laundry on her/Weiner's laptop.
The missing (deleted) emails, the references to paedophile activities and snippets of pay-for-play
inside the Clinton Foundation. These are not just embarrassing or technicalities that can be woven
into excuses, but information that could bring hanging back as the ultimate form of justice for
the perpetrators.
So, these cretins are doing what they glanced at in The Art of War: That the best defense is
offence. They are going all out full retard to save their lives using every asset they have in
the msm, intelligence, politics and oligarchy.
Look how fast they moved with H.R.6393 to criminalize alternative news. To discredit the leaked
information, to discredit the source, to attack anyone who publishes or mentions them. They will
not stop because they cannot stop. This isn't a subsidy for the failing msm, that's a bonus, this
is a fight for their existence because they have committed crimes that not a single decent person
in the world can abide. It is so horrific, I still have trouble with believing it, but the circumstantial
evidence is overwhelming.
Where this will lead is obvious -- a distraction first from the content of the leaks, false
accusations and attacks on Russia and anyone who talks about it, leading to the biggest false
accusation of all: Trump as a (willing or unwilling) foreign agent which amounts to treason and
therefore unfit to be president. Bring the hammer down on the stock market at the same time and
we have a conflagration erupting from the already boiling cauldron of American society. Too much
conjecture? Maybe.
No, you articulated what I was alluding to a few posts above (I posted before reading yours).
Their desperation makes them very dangerous, especially while still ostensibly in charge of
many elements of gov't and, of course, the entrenched MSM.
They'll create the crisis they vow to not let go to waste. Any excuse to seize ultimate
power.
No, I can't accept that the Russian's hacked Hillary's server. Not until I see some evidence.
Just repeating the same gossip a million times is not providing evidence.
Not just gossip, an un-named official (not an official statement by the department head) stating
with "confidence" (not evidence), off the record but reported in every major fish-wrap, that Russian
hackers were interfered in our elections, AND inferring that they knew the motives/intentions
behind this conjured crime.
If there were ANY evidence, the Dems would have paraded it out in front of us loudly and
proudly the second they found it. Instead, they prefer making jacka$$es out of themselves
(and our country) with innuendo-based trial balloons, as everyone in the world capable of critical
thinking laughs at them (us).
This tactic is so brutally transparent that I really fear what they are really up to......or
maybe they are this stupid?
So we are still "shooting the messenger"? Nobody wants to discuss the content of the Podesta
emails, even though they have not been discredited in any way. Classic divert and deflect
tactics which a Libtard MSM enjoys being a part of.
They probably forgot about Snowden revelation way too soon...
Either Russian intelligence officials have suddenly become extremely efficient at disrupting national
elections in the world's largest democracies or the establishment leaders of those democracies have
intentionally launched a coordinated, baseless witch hunt as a way to distract voters from their
failed policies. We have our suspicions on which is more likely closer to the truth...
Either way, per Reuters
, Germany's domestic intelligence agency is reporting a "striking increase" in Russian propaganda
and disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilizing German society, and targeted cyber attacks against
political parties.
"We see aggressive and increased cyber spying and cyber operations that could potentially endanger
German government officials, members of parliament and employees of democratic parties," Hans-Georg
Maassen, head of the BfV spy agency, said in statement.
Maassen, who raised similar concerns about Russian efforts to interfere in German elections
last month, cited what he called increasing evidence about such efforts and said further cyber
attacks were expected.
The agency said it had seen a wide variety of Russian propaganda tools and "enormous use of
financial resources" to carry out "disinformation" campaigns aimed at the Russian-speaking community
in Germany, political movements, parties and other decision makers.
The goal was to spread uncertainty, strengthen extremist groups and parties, complicate the
work of the federal government and "weaken or destabilise the Federal Republic of Germany".
Like accusations made by Hillary and Obama in the U.S., German politicians, including Chancellor
Angela Merkel, have asserted that Russian intelligence agents and media outlets have attempted to
spread "fake news" in an effort to "fan popular angst over issues like the migrant crisis." Of course,
it can't simply be that voters disagree with Merkel's "open border" policies which have resulted
in a massive influx of migrants that have been linked to increasing crime, terrorist attacks and
sexual assaults on German citizens...that would just be silly and racist and xenophobic.
German officials have accused Moscow of trying to manipulate German media to fan popular angst
over issues like the migrant crisis , weaken voter trust and breed dissent within the European
Union so that it drops sanctions against Moscow.
But intelligence officials have stepped up their warnings in recent weeks, alarmed about the
number of attacks.
Last month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she could not rule out Russia interfering
in Germany's 2017 election through Internet attacks and misinformation campaigns.
Estonian Foreign Minister Sven Mikser on Thursday said he expected Russia to continue a campaign
of "psychological warfare" and spreading false information after the cyber attacks launched during
the U.S. election.
"It's a pretty safe bet that they will try to do it again," he told Reuters in Hamburg at a
meeting of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. "They will try to surprise
us. That's something that we should be very careful to look at and try to protect ourselves from."
While we have absolutely no doubt in Merkel and Obama's assertions that Russia has been able to
successfully sabotage national elections, it is curious that, in the U.S., Russian efforts were only
successful in certain states where voters had been disproportionately hurt by past Clinton policies
(e.g. WI, MI, PA, OH) but not in other swing states like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.
Exactly. The whole Putin did it narrative in the MSM is government propaganda. Nato bullshit Deep
State military industrial complex trying very hard to get the Sheeple to believe in their leaders.....
The biggest defeat for globalists would be that Europe will start looking east, towards Russia,
instead of West. Follow the money for these German politicians: bet the "Open Society Foundation"
from George Soros will be mentioned regularly.
The world would be a better place if Russia actualy did all the things they have been accused
of instead of the CIA and Germany making all this shit up.
One thing is for certain the NWO was working on Russia at the time of the election, which Clinton
was meant to be a guaranteed winner - expcept the Soros-Neocon-Clinton-DNC cabal totally fucked
up their rigging, not realising how popular Trump actually was.
NOW they are in total fucking panic trying to think of ways to get Trump out.
These neocon fucktard New World Order proponents were trying to corner Russia, remove Putin
and make Russia kow tow to the NWO and accept their new overlords. EXCEPT it was and is a total
fucking stupid idea because the result would have been nuclear war - Russia would never ever bend
to the USA and the NWO - they were totally dreaming if they believed that. And the result would
have been a military alliance between China and Russia - with Europe and the USA and Russia in
ashes.
The world dodge a nuclear bullet when Trump won. So now, having failed to overturn the
election through Stein recounts and rigging (the judges wouldn't play along) they have to go the
whole demonise Russia thing, as was their original plan. And they want to push it fast before
the EU breaks up, as the sheeple wake the fuck up to these neocon Oligarch overlords.
My bet is a major False Flag attack somewhere outrageous blamed on Russia.
These fucking neocons like Soros, Israel, Germany, Clintons and all their backers and cabal
either are totally stupid or just don't give a fuck, knowing that nuclear war is a real possibility
- AND that the USA CANNOT defend itself against nuclear attack , despite all the wankery about
their defense systems.
So these people know there is a chance of laying waste to the USA - and they don't care, it
is worth it for their NWO.
Considering that the Russians are Hollywood's favorite general purpose villains (as opposed to
the practitioners of the religion of peace, or Mexican criminals), this is hardly unexpected,
dontcha think?
last week I read that the german government was aware of the NSA spying at least since 2001. No
outrage here. Outrage only occurs if you don't have any evidence, and it's the russians. Do you
know how most of german elections are held? Paper ballots, ID-cards and lists of citizens who
are elligible to vote. There's definitely some hacking possible... Hate your politicians,
often!
Not only did they know that the NSA spied on the German government -including Merkel's mobile-
the German BND along with the NSA spied on the rest of Europe: policitians, EU officials and European
businesses.
While I will agree that if you knew where to look, in a basic fashion, everything he brought
to light was already known or knowable, at least.
The thing Snowden did was brought all the pieces together, stole the graphics (great visualizing
tools), program names and working details and evidence that these things are all possible and
on-line. ..... He brought the story together and made it very public. .........
Not something that Boos Hamilton, the CIA or the NSA would have wanted. ..
well, whatever you might think about Russian influence in the US...
... Russian influence on and in Germany (and all other european countries) is a quite different
affair. one little factoid: the so called "Russlands-Deutsche"( * ), i.e. "Russian-Germans" number
somewhere between two and three million , in Germany. we are talking here about at least one million
that speaks Russian better then German, and reads/watches Russian News
here, on this continent, we are btw somewhat used to external influences, be them Russian or
US ones
I forecasted to "Haus" some years ago that eventually the German political "status-quo" would
start to point out the Russian influence on "Alternative fόr Deutschland". That moment is nearly
there
again: US Americans might be somewhat confused about foreign influences on their political
matters
here , it has been a reality during the whole of the Cold War and after, from both the US and
Russia
just some examples:
the reports over the last years about the German parliament being spied upon and hacked by
both the CIA and the Russian intelligence services are completely plausible. Merkel was holding
up her phone... and alleged that the CIA was spying on her. again, very plausible
the EU org in Brussels was hacked/spied upon by the British intelligence services, too. again,
very plausible. indeed, now that the Brexit talks begin in a confrontational manner... there are
even more reasons for the British GCHQ to spy on Brussels
They are caled "Spaetaussiedler" Ghordius. There are about the same number of Turks in Germany.
It is true the prison population of Germany is largely Serbs, Turks, Spaetaussiedler and New Arrivals.
I hear Russian but after having millions of Russian soldiers in Germany since 1945 and huge
Russian influence back into the 18th Century that is not unusual. You can get Tax Forms in Russian
but not English.
Berlin always was the capital of the East never of the West which Adenauer cleverly placed
on the Rhine rather than the Spree. Berlin has always had to consider Russia because ONLY in the
years 1919-1939 and 1990-2016 has Germany NOT shared a border with Russia in the past 250 years.
It is German Aggression that twice brought Russian troops to Berlin
Sandmann, as often, you try to "soften the blow" of my message with some tidbits that are often
completely irrelevant
they don't call themselves "Spδtaussiedler". They call themselves Russlands-Deutsche, i.e.
Russian-Germans
their prison population is irrelevant, here. their right to vote in the German election is
they read Russian News, they watch RT in Russian, they hold up signs like "Putin save us",
and they are quite confused, to boot, and pawns in this "game"
some Germans, when they arrived, made jokes that some of those Russian-Germans hardly qualified
to "Germanness", up to saying things like "all families that in the 19th Century had once a German
Shephard as pet". but this is too, irrelevant
fact is that their numbers are substantial. fact is that they are influenced by their media
consumption from Russia. fact is that they were used to see Putin and Merkel as good friends...
until they weren't anymore, and since then they are bombarded with news how Merkel is the source
of all evils, in Europe
fact is also that the political establishments in Germany were, up to now, not that fond to
tell them anything that would make them too confused because... they are voters, too. and in a
political setup like Germany's, you don't tell hard truths to voters, and you don't insult them
as dupes
nevertheless, fact is that Russian (and US, note) influence on Germany's politics is substantial,
including that on the Russlands-Deutsche in Germany
I don't think anyone is denying the fact that Germany has become a playball of foreign powers
ever since it lost WW1, yes the first, not the second one was already desicive in that.
Now, no matter how many German-Russians there are in Germany they are still citizens of your
country, else they would not have been allowed to come back. The question for Germany needs to
be looking ahead into the future, become aware that it is dependent or even controlled by other
greater powers, a status it lost, one century ago. Its citizens should start to raise the question
which side is better for us, should we work more closely with continental Russia, with all its
ressources and land? Or should we work closer with martim ZATO? What has that relationship really
done for us, what have we truly benefitted from it?
Once there is a serious discussion going on about it, Germans will surely never support an
atlantcist such as Merkel. For the time being, I'm glad there are German-Russians at least one
branch of German society that is keenly aware of the dire situation your country is in.
" no matter how many German-Russians there are in Germany they are still citizens of your country,
else they would not have been allowed to come back "
do you live in some alternate reality planet? check yourself on this your assumption
we are talking about Russian citizens that were granted German citizenship when arriving in
Germany because of their German ancestry
the "Return of the Russian-Germans" to Germany has gone on since before and after WWI, and
the only thing that stopped it for a while was the Iron Curtain
nevertheless, it was a German policy to grant them citizenship on arrival
and no, your "Merkel the Atlanticist" is a tad... extreme. it's not about Russia or "ZATO",
here
Right, else they would not have been granted citizenship, I don't see why we should disagree on
that subject.
Regarding Merkel is not an Atlanticist, I would like a bit more of an argument just calling
it extreme but not providing information as to why is not making your argument very strong. I
have plenty of reasons to believe she is: "Allowing nuclear weaopns to be stationed in Germany
against the will of the Bundestag, not being the slightest bit affected by the NSA spying scandal,
supporting sanctions to Russia that hurt German business much more than British or American...the
list goes on and on."
samjam7, do you ever check on what you believe ? let's take only this: " (Merkel) allowing nuclear
weapons to be stationed in Germany against the will of the Bundestag "
just googled it. already in the second hit I get this:
" The Bundestag decided in March 2010 by a large majority, that the federal government should
'press for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany.' Even the coalition agreement between
the CDU and FDP, the German government in 2009 had promised the withdrawal of nuclear weapons
from Bόchel. "
that's the German Bundestag pressing/instructing the German executive to "do something" in
that direction, yes
that's not the German Bundestag doing a law , which is the very thing it could do, being a
lawgiver
saying "the will of the Bundestag" in this is just that: propaganda. and you fell for it
the true will of the Bundestag is expressed in law. the rest is "please, try to...", so that
your "Merkel is going against the will of..." is just... stretching the truth
in the same way, there is a substantial difference between welcoming citizens of other countries
because of their ancestry and granting them citizenship versus: "they already had that German
citizenship"
Where in the above statement did I talk of law? You Germans always need everything 'schwarz auf
weiss' or its wrong....
I spoke of will and to be honest even your quote that you thankfully looked up, proofs without
any doubt that the parliament had a will, namely not to station more nuclear weapons in Bόchel.
Now that the Bundestag doesn't fight with Merkel over it 'i.e. pass a law' is related to the political
system of Germany and that its major parties are co-opted and prefer to nod off Merkel's politics
than resist it. Also it is highly questionable whether the German Parliament has the authority
to decide on these matters, as it delves into the grey area of who actually decides what kind
of troops are stationed in Germany, Merkel or the US/UK?
To call that Propaganda though is unwarranted and rather weak, or how more clearly can a Parliament
demonstrate its will?
"... William Casey (CIA Director), "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."? ..."
"... if an organization has lost trust of national security affairs it should be DISBANDED ..."
"... ...so why did Debbie Wassername-Schultz resign if the hacks were untrue about her non-neutrality toward Bernie Marx in favor of Hillary Crony? Is this not a usurpation of the peoples will and an affront to "democracy" everywhere? ..."
"... How is it that a "charity" is only a "charity" as long as the people running this "charity" remain in power? Everyone suddenly becomes "less charitable" because she lost? Why is that? Can't they say cronyism and be done with it? ..."
"... The entire story is based on a leak from Senate Staff on SSCI alleging what they were told in a briefing by CIMC. What SSCI was told is that there is no evidence of who was the hacker. Because Russia is one of many possibilities, somebody on SSCI who leaked to WaPo concluded for himself that the hacker was Russia. That is not what they were told. The vitriol should be directed toward WaPo and their Senate SSCI source. ..."
"... As the Obama Administration falls apart, expect the various players to begin to look out for themselves. ..."
"... Obama is hanging everyone out to dry in the futile attempt to save his own 'legacy'. ..."
"... Truman signed its charter. The original intent was to assemble and study Information, period. Truman later remarked he would never have done so had he known it would go amok. Instead, it became a weapon of the Deep State. It is now a direct threat to the American Republic. ..."
"... Ah, yes. The CIA The folks who claimed that Sony was hacked by North Korea, when a private security firm was able to directly finger the disgruntled ex-employees responsible. ..."
"... The CIA is run by neocons, who are upset that their stooge Hillary lost the election and Trump, the elected President-to-be, is making a direct pivot towards accomodation with their arch-enemy Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the receivers of the DNC leaks know who they got the information from, and swear publicly that that also was an inside leak. But if it were an inside leak, then it couldn't call the results of the election into question. Only interference by a Foreign Power can do that. ..."
"... Same for the Nameless One. Does she want to admit that her own bureaucracy prefers that she not sit on the throne, or does she like the idea of blaming a sinister foreign entity for her loss? ..."
"... If the Russians did it, is Obama twisting the knife in the Clinton's back? The email leaks were a false flag attack against the Clintons perpetrated by Obama to remove them from the power matrix, and install himself as head of the Democrat party, free from their influence, and free to move that party in the direction he wants as it's defacto leader. ..."
"... John Swinton, Chief editorial writer of the New York Times from 1860 to 1870: "There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes." ..."
"... Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked. ..."
"... The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern.(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners. ..."
"... Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. ..."
"... Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: " Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. ..."
"... The other begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?" The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity. ..."
"... Craig Murray: "[...] the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming incredibly that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. " I wasn't aware of this CIA allegation against the FBI, it's quite astonishing. ..."
"... Craig Murray: "[...] this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. " No one should be surprised that The Guardian is up to its neck in publishing ... garbage ..."
A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals"
involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers,
and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the
most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even
though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or
(if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals?
Plainly it stinks.
The anonymous source claims of "We know who it was, it was the Russians" are beneath contempt.
The CIA has lots of evidence (both collected and manufactured) which is then misconstrued through
politiczed analysis and dissemination to serve their own and their primary customer's personal
interests.
Back during the Reagan administration, someone casually told me "We spend more on disinformaion
than we do on information" - I doubt things have changed that much since then.
Correct me if Im wrong; but i thought the law prohibits the CIA from operations and investigations
on home soil. That is the job for the FBI. Why is the CIA commenting on computer systems that
were hacked in the US of A? There are at least a dozen other agencies (just as worthless) that
this would fall under their jurisdiction.
If the Russians had anything to do with the hacked emails, which are only accusations, they
did the American people a great service by exposing the evil of the DNC, HRottenC and their
MSM minions, none of whom could care less about their ethics violations. They are only upset
because they were caught. Their supporters have been had by their own kind and their leaders
are now redirecting their exposure onto the Russians and Trump to keep their sheep misdirected
from the real problems, HRC and Obama.
we all know what happened to the boy who cried "wolf" when none were there... by the time there
actually _were_ wolves, no one believed him...
the CIA has lost the plot and cried "wolf" too many times for anyone to believe them anymore...
if an organization has lost trust of national security affairs it should be DISBANDED
Well it is a wide open "bear trap"...lol...(to use a metaphor) sitting there out in the open
un-camouflaged for everyone with two brain cells left in their heads to see...and at some point
someone is going to ask...
...so why did Debbie Wassername-Schultz resign if the hacks were untrue about her non-neutrality
toward Bernie Marx in favor of Hillary Crony? Is this not a usurpation of the peoples will
and an affront to "democracy" everywhere?
How is it that a "charity" is only a "charity" as long as the people running this "charity"
remain in power? Everyone suddenly becomes "less charitable" because she lost? Why is that?
Can't they say cronyism and be done with it?
Yezzz, let the progressive tears flow, they taste wonderful ;-)
The Brit Ambassador has the wrong target, because he was caught by Fake News.
The entire story is based on a leak from Senate Staff on SSCI alleging what they were
told in a briefing by CIMC. What SSCI was told is that there is no evidence of who was the
hacker. Because Russia is one of many possibilities, somebody on SSCI who leaked to WaPo concluded
for himself that the hacker was Russia. That is not what they were told. The vitriol should
be directed toward WaPo and their Senate SSCI source.
As the Obama Administration falls apart, expect the various players to begin to look
out for themselves. Do not be surprised if in the next few days, Brennan or someone else
at the agency sets the record straight and throws some 'shade' on WaPo and Obama.
Obama is hanging everyone out to dry in the futile attempt to save his own 'legacy'.
Whoever might have been a loyal soldier and who fell on his sword if requested to do so
is not going to do it anymore. Obama is a child who cannot accept that he has been an abject
failure, so he is getting desperate to create some false historical record.
I remember Zerohedge reporting on a meeting last year with US Senator McCain and Arab terrorists
that included photos . These terrorists were on the US most wanted list. Too bad
that Canadian reporter did not mention that.
I'd say this entire campaign is far too clunky and clumsy to be executed by the CIA
The CIA has done some incredibly evil shit in the past so I wouldn't put something like this
past them, however they are far more professional generally than this from my limited exposure
and what I've researched about activities of the agency.
The "CIA" has outlived its usefulness. It needs to be broken up and disbanded.
Truman signed its charter. The original intent was to assemble and study Information,
period. Truman later remarked he would never have done so had he known it would go amok. Instead,
it became a weapon of the Deep State. It is now a direct threat to the American Republic.
Our spy and security apparatus didn't defeat the Soviet Union's "evil empire" so much as it
emulated it, using Orwell and Huxley as roadmaps, rather than warnings.
Maybe it wasn't the Russians. Who else could it possibly be? Not the CIA! Not in good ol USA.
Maybe it was Aliens! After all the UK Mail thought as much with Kennedy. Or maybe Bush and
his clan are the Aliens. All I can say is Trump better never let the CIA instead of Secret
Service guard him and his motorcade!
The CIA Kennedy assassination theory is a prominent John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy
theory. The CIA's potential involvement was frequently mentioned during the 1960s and 1970s
when the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in plots to assassinate foreign
leaders, particularly Fidel Castro.[1][2] According to author James Douglass, Kennedy was
assassinated because he was turning away from the Cold War and seeking a negotiated peace
with the Soviet Union.[3][4] Accusations and confessions of and by alleged conspirators,
as well as official government reports citing the CIA as uncooperative in investigations,
have at times renewed interest in these conspiracy theories.
Ah, yes. The CIA The folks who claimed that Sony was hacked by North Korea,
when a private security firm was able to directly finger the disgruntled ex-employees responsible.
Let's break this down some more. The CIA is run by neocons, who are upset that
their stooge Hillary lost the election and Trump, the elected President-to-be, is making a
direct pivot towards accomodation with their arch-enemy Vladimir Putin.
Meanwhile, the FBI is stacked with political employees and their career hirees installed
under GW Bush, and leans strongly against the Democrats, to the point of deliberately leaking
damaging evidence against the Democratic candidate the week before the election . . . granted
that there wouldn't have been any information to leak, if Hillary had followed the laws and
policies of her federal position.
Meanwhile, the receivers of the DNC leaks know who they got the information from, and
swear publicly that that also was an inside leak. But if it were an inside leak, then
it couldn't call the results of the election into question. Only interference by a Foreign
Power can do that.
But to the extent that the Russians DID lobby against Hillary, they did so completely openly.
If you read an article in Russia Today in favor of Trump or against Hillary, you can hardly
claim to be deceived.
The Russians are allowed to have an opinion; we can't stop that. What they aren't
allowed to do is to vote, or to contribute money to the candidates' campaigns (here we will
lightly skip over the millions donated to Hillary's campaign by Israeli dual citizens, the
Saudis, the Australians, Nigeria, VietNam, India, Haiti . . .).
What did you expect them to say? "Uh, yes, Mr. President, it was us, actually." Of course
they are going to point the finger elsewhere. Especially to someplace that cannot be pressured.
You would too, if placed in the same position. Same for the Nameless One. Does she
want to admit that her own bureaucracy prefers that she not sit on the throne, or does she
like the idea of blaming a sinister foreign entity for her loss?
And even if Russia did it, it's not like they made anything up. Come on, people. Realpolitik.
The CIA (Central Insanity Agency) IS the United States government. It controls all of the other
so-called independent intelligence agencies. Would the CIA lie to overturn the 2016 Presidential
elections? Well, the CIA are the very same people who: <
for decades have had hundreds of nationally and internationally prominent so-called
journalists on the CIA payroll and controlled the stories reported by Western Mainstream
Conporate News Media;
assassinated President John F. Kennedy because they were furious about the failure of
their insane Bay of Pigs fiasco, the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.,
etc., etc.;
faked the Gulf of Tonkin intelligence to get the United States Congress to pass the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution giving the bloodthirsty Generals and Admirals and President Lyndon
B. Johnson the false flag incident to drastically escalate the Vietnam Warclosely located
to the Golden Triangle's highly coveted rich heroin suppliesand all of the attendant decades
of lying about that war;
destabilized Afghanistan to encourage invasion by the Soviet Union;
created, supported and armed the Sunni Mujahideen, which morphed into Al Qaeda following
the Gulf War, to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan;
encouraged President Jimmy Carter to admit the Shah of Iran to create the pretext for
decades of enmity between Iran and the United States and destroy Jimmy Carter's Presidency;
encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait to give President George H. W. Bush the pretext
to declare war on Iraq;
were behind the 9/11/2001 false flag attacks on the World Trade Center towers, and their
destruction with controlled explosives demolitions charges, and the Pentagon and then lied
that it was all an Al Qaeda plot;
lied about Al Qaeda's role in 9/11/2001 to justify the invasion of Afghanistan with
its highly coveted, rich poppy fields for heroin production;
lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify President George W. Bush's war
of aggression against Iraq;
created, finances, arms and supports ISIS;
plans and carries out false flag operations to influence public opinion;
lie about whatever whenever it suits their agenda;
controls the 'narratives' in the Feral gangster government's organs of state propaganda
(mainstream & social media and entertainment oligopoly);
And far, far more. But, I got tired of typing and I don't want to bore the readers. The
point being that they are ALL professional liars and the love of truth and the American Republic
is not in them.
Yes, of course the CIA would lie to overturn the 2016 Presidential elections.
If the Russians did it, is Obama twisting the knife in the Clinton's back?
The email leaks were a false flag attack against the Clintons perpetrated by Obama to remove
them from the power matrix, and install himself as head of the Democrat party, free from their
influence, and free to move that party in the direction he wants as it's defacto leader.
Blaming the leaks on the Russians gains obfuscation of Obama's chief foreign policy failure
as President.... drawing a red line, then failing to act when it was crossed, which signaled
to the world that he was an impudent little bitch that could be ignored in a world that understands
only one thiing..... strength.
John Swinton, Chief editorial writer of the New York Times from 1860 to 1870: "There
is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would
dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie
outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country,
and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes.
We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and
our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing
the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem
in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform.
Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.
Furthermore, Clinton's statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing
painfully clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not
know the details of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of
the CIA These facts began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today
we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and
verified from countless different directions.
The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical
pattern.(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the
Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior
were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they
were foreigners.
However, over the last two decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the
CIA has found that it does not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is
especially true in the age of the Internet, where information flows freely among millions of
people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency must now defend itself with apologetics.
Clinton's "Americans will never know" defense is a prime example.
Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must
deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all."
There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly
spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the
company of military dictators and tyrants.
The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.
Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: " Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit
the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem
from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama.
The other begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other
peoples' human rights?" The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for
crimes against humanity.
Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal of collecting
and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options.
The first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second
option is that we can place covert action under extensive and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members could review and veto all
aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote.
Which of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear:
like dictatorship, like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs
they are.
Craig Murray: "[...] the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming incredibly
that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion.
"
I wasn't aware of this CIA allegation against the FBI, it's quite astonishing.
The FBI and CIA are both utterly corrupt, as is every other faction of the Obola Administration
including the Marxist slimeball himself at the very top, but what we see here are factions
throwing allegations against each other.
Craig Murray: "[...] this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US
and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. "
No one should be surprised that The Guardian is up to its neck in publishing ... garbage
written by Jonathen Freedland. After all it's been "the progressive Left's" house newspaper
for years and is known as " The Grauniad " by dissenters.
What is truly bad is that the BBC are coming out of the closet and once again revealing
their own Left-wing Establishment bias by running fake news stories on its TV news channel.
"... President-elect Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with " Fox News Sunday ," decried as "ridiculous" the CIA's reported assessment that Russia intervened in the election to boost his candidacy describing the claim as another "excuse" pushed by Democrats to explain his upset victory. ..."
President-elect Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with "
Fox News
Sunday ," decried as "ridiculous" the CIA's reported assessment that Russia intervened in
the election to boost his candidacy describing the claim as another "excuse" pushed by Democrats
to explain his upset victory.
"It's just another excuse. I don't believe it," Trump said. " Every week it's another excuse.
We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College."
Trump spoke with Fox News' Chris Wallace in the president-elect's first Sunday show interview
since winning the election.
"... If the CIA is actually stupid enough to believe this, the US is without a competent intelligence agency. Of course, the CIA didn't say and doesn't believe any such thing. The fake news stories in the presstitute media are all sourced to unnamed officials. Former British ambassador Craig Murray described the reports accurately: "bullshit." ..."
"... Fake news is the presstitute's product. Throughout the presidential primaries and presidential campaign it was completely clear that the mainstream print and TV media were producing endless fake news designed to damage Trump and to boost Hillary. We all saw it. We all lived through it. What is this pretense that Russia is the source of fake news? ..."
"... We have had nothing but fake news from the presstitutes since the Klingon regime. Fake news was used against Yugoslavia and Serbia in order to cloak the Clinton's war crimes. ..."
"... Ironic, isn't it, that it is those who purport to be liberal and progressive who are responsible for the revival of McCarthyism in America. Moreover, the liberal progressives are institutionalizing McCarthyism in the US government. There is clearly a concerted effort being made to define truth as fake news and to define lies as truth. ..."
Speaking of fake news, the latest issue of the National Enquirer at the supermarket checkout is
giving the mainstream presstitute media a run for the money: "Castro's Deathbed Confession: I Killed
JFK. How I framed Oswald."
That's almost as good as the fake news going around the presstitute media, such as the TV stations,
the Washington Post, New York Times, and Guardian-yes, even the former leftwing British newspaper
has joined the ranks of the press prostitutes-that the CIA has concluded that "Russian operatives
covertly interfered in the election campaign in an attempt to ensure the Republican candidate's victory."
If the CIA is actually stupid enough to believe this, the US is without a competent intelligence
agency. Of course, the CIA didn't say and doesn't believe any such thing. The fake news stories in
the presstitute media are all sourced to unnamed officials. Former British ambassador Craig Murray
described the reports accurately: "bullshit."
So who is making the stories up, another anonymous group tied to Hillary such as PropOrNot, the
secret, hidden organization that released a list of 200 websites that are Russian agents?
Fake news is the presstitute's product. Throughout the presidential primaries and presidential
campaign it was completely clear that the mainstream print and TV media were producing endless fake
news designed to damage Trump and to boost Hillary. We all saw it. We all lived through it. What
is this pretense that Russia is the source of fake news?
We have had nothing but fake news from the presstitutes since the Klingon regime. Fake news was
used against Yugoslavia and Serbia in order to cloak the Clinton's war crimes.
Fake news was used against Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia in
order to cloak the Bush regime's war crimes.
Fake news was used against Libya and Syria in order to cloak the Obama regime's war crimes.
Without fake news these three blood-drenched presidencies would have been hauled before the War
Crimes Commission, tried, and convicted.
Can anyone produce any truthful statement from the presstitute media about anything of importance?
MH-17? Crimea? Ukraine?
Ironic, isn't it, that it is those who purport to be liberal and progressive who are responsible
for the revival of McCarthyism in America. Moreover, the liberal progressives are institutionalizing
McCarthyism in the US government. There is clearly a concerted effort being made to define truth
as fake news and to define lies as truth.
"... As Pam Martens reports, another imbecile has now composed a list of 200 suspect professors who also dissent from the official bullshit fed to the American people. ..."
"... In an effort to regain control over Americans' minds, they are attempting to define dissenters and truth-tellers as "Russian agents." Why "Russian agents"? Because they hope that their fake news portrait of Russia as America's deadly enemy has taken hold and will result in the public turning away from those of us labeled "Russian agents." ..."
As Pam Martens reports, another imbecile has now composed a list of 200 suspect professors who also
dissent from the official bullshit fed to the American people.
The official government purveyors of fake news in the US and their presstitute agents are concerned
that they are losing control over the explanations given to the American people.
In an effort to regain control over Americans' minds, they are attempting to define dissenters and
truth-tellers as "Russian agents." Why "Russian agents"? Because they hope that their
fake news portrait of Russia as America's deadly enemy has taken hold and will result in the public
turning away from those of us labeled "Russian agents."
"... At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S. ..."
"... Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail. ..."
"... Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington's intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill. ..."
...Does the name Judith Miller ring any bells? And the squeaks of rage coming from
the U.S. Congress over being lied to is also something to behold as the federal
government has been acting in collusion with the media to dish up falsehoods
designed to start wars since the time of the Spanish-American conflict in 1898,
if not before.
The fake news saga is intended to discredit Donald Trump, whom
the media hates mostly because they failed to understand either him or the
Americans who voted for him in the recent election. You have to blame somebody
when you are wrong so you invent "fake news" as the game changer that explains
your failure to comprehend simple truths. To accomplish that, the clearly
observable evidence that the media was piling on Donald Trump at every
opportunity has somehow been deliberately morphed into a narrative that it is
Trump who was
attacking the media, suggesting that it was all self-defense on the part of
the Rachel Maddows of this world, but anyone who viewed even a small portion of
the farrago surely will have noted that it was the Republican candidate who was
continuously coming under attack from both the right and left of the
political-media spectrum.
There are also some secondary narratives being promoted, including a
pervasive argument that Hillary Clinton was somehow the victim of the news
reporting due specifically to fake stories emanating largely from Moscow in an
attempt to not only influence the election but also to subvert
America's democratic institutions. I
have observed that if such a truly ridiculous objective were President
Vladimir Putin's desired goal he might as well relax. Our own Democratic and
Republican duopoly has already been doing a fine job at subverting democracy by
assiduously separating the American people from the elite Establishment that
theoretically represents and serves them.
Another side of the mainstream media lament that has been relatively
unexplored is what the media chooses not to report. At the present moment, it
is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even
though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global
adversary of the U.S.
Instead of seeking a new Cold War, Washington should
instead focus on working with Russia to make sure that disagreements over
policies in relatively unimportant parts of the world do not escalate into
nuclear exchanges. Russian actions on its own doorstep in Eastern Europe do not
in fact threaten the United States or any actual vital interest. Nor does
Moscow threaten the U.S. through its intervention on behalf of the Syrian
government in the Middle East. That Russia is described incessantly as a threat
in those areas is largely a contrivance arranged by the media, the Democratic
and Republican National Committees and by the White House.
Candidate Donald
Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael
Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail.
Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington's
intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the
Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out
of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters
who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill.
Neoconservatives are frequently
described as ideologues, but the truth is that they are more interested in
gaining increased access to money and power than they are in promulgating their
own brand of global regime change.
Russophobia/Putinophobia is as big as it is because it is a rare issue where the
mainstream right, the left and the political class all agree, albeit for different reasons. The
mainstream right is anti Russia because of the Cold War and Russia's support for Iran, Venezuela
and Cuba. The left hates Russia because of Pussy Riot, humiliating Obama and Merkel in the
Ukraine, Snowden, supporting anti immigrant politicians like Le Pen and Wilders, jailing/killing
pro Western Russian politicians, the gay stuff and especially for Trump. The political class
hates Russia simply because it is a rival to US power in Europe and the Middle East. Put all
three together, and you get a political consensus for Russophobia.
At the end of the day, however, Russophobia or even Putinophobia is a minority position in the
US; or else Trump wouldn't have been elected. And a huge chunk of the people who voted for
Hillary are blacks and hispanics, who don't give a rat's ass about Russia and probably couldn't
even find it on a map.
Before Pussy Riot/Ukraine/Snowden/Gays/Trump there was even a lot of sympathy in the US media for
victims of Chechen terrorism, especially after the Beslan school thing. As late as the 2012
election, Obama was mocking Mitt Romney's Russophobia.
"... There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. ..."
I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story blatant
because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it.
There is no Russian involvement
in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in
the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news.
I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.
Thanks for this a much-needed Onion-esque satirical dig at the Globe/Post/NYT trifecta of
garbage. To base a headline on information gleaned from anonymous sources and unnamed officials
in secret meetings with unpublished agendas seems the most dangerous type of fake news there is.
The death of irony was greatly exaggerated, if you ask me.
Are we seeing a pattern here? Tillerson - a Putin counterpart and
recipient of Russia's Order of Friendship - to Moscow; Gov Branstad - farmin'
buddy of Premier Xi since the 1980s - to Beijing. And so forth.
Inside-the-Beltway folk are upset at the overturning of the established
order, in which diplomatic posts go to the biggest bundlers, regardless of
country knowledge. Lacking titles of nobility here in the Homeland, we need
an outlet for the well-connected to purchase a prestigious sinecure and a
black diplomatic passport. Otherwise a frightening Revolt of the Affluent
could roil our streets.
Still angling for the Court of St James myself - got any witticisms I
could share with the Queen?
Like it or not, Tillerson as secretary of "state" makes a fair amount of
sense.
His appointment would acknowledge, pretty overtly, that american foreign
"policy" is, always and everywhere, about energy.
We ignore human rights abuses in saudi arabia and overthrow Gadhafi when
he proposes demanding payment for oil in a gold-backed currency. Iraq. Assad
must "go" because of a pipeline. A biden boy gets a seat on the board of a
Ukranian energy company after a u. s. backed coup. The clinton foundation in
Nigeria.
And that's just the last decade or so of wars and "threats to american
interests." Maybe it's time we just got honest about it.
"... My perspective from across the ocean has always been that the McCarthy philosophy was the least admirable episode in recent US history. ..."
"... It's almost as if the West, or at least Western Elite circles who have strived to saturate the airways with Russia-the-bogey-man material since the year dot, can they, on the back of this one-sided propaganda machine, wheel-out blame directed towards Russia for .... well almost anything they desire. ..."
"... If only Barack Hussain Obama had not taken it upon his self to interfere in our referendum with his clear 'Back of the queue' threat, it may have been possible to not think he is a hypocrite. ..."
"... I suspect this is one last roll of the dice by the 'democrats' to keep Trump out of office. ..."
"... Obama is foolishly upping the ante, not on Putin, but on Trump. Trump's instinct will be to put a 10x hurt on Obama for this. Don't punk Trump. ..."
"... They are desperate to discredit the winner. It is as ineffective as any of his failed policies ..."
"... In other words, Obama admits he hasn't kept America secure versus 21st-century threats. ..."
"... Obama has said the intelligence agencies had the proof that Russia interfered with the election. With all their proof why order a review? Can't wait until Obama leaves office. ..."
"... what, is the USA the new Latin America, and Russia the new CIA ? forever meddling surreptitiously to undermine and overthrow other sovereign nation states democratic processes ? that's just so unfair ..."
"... It is a funny joke, but on the essence I would advise to read investigative report "The New Red Scare" in Harpers. The evidence of Russian government having anything to do with any hacks is literally non-existing. ..."
"... The US, heckler of the world for decades, stirring trouble wherever the dart falls, and yet Russian hackers and North Korean hookers are to blame for 99.9% of the worlds problems. Reality is, if the US didn't move past its own borders for 10 years the world would be already a much, much better place. ..."
"... The Guardian probably shouldn't go along in helping build the new McCarthyist, Cold War narrative, especially when it's just a bunch of US politicians and media figures repeating politically expedient, but factually unsupported claims. The Western media is trying to be Hearst Newspapers in the Spanish-American war. ..."
"... This is explicitly bad because it allows the suppression of dissent, of creating blacklists, the military industrial complex to further consolidate power, and to blame all sorts of domestic failures on shadowing foreign influence. ..."
"... But when Judith Miller, the NYT, George Bush and Hillary Clinton used fake news to kill hundreds of thousands, Obama told us to get over it, to "look forward and not backward." ..."
"... The United States has attempted to push its democratic ideologies on countries all over the world, using means much more direct than hacking. Yet they cannot take a fraction of what they dish out. If Russia is indeed intervening to aid nationalists around the world, then Russia is a friend and should be welcomed with open arms. Trump should do the same, and used the powers of the United States to undermine [neoliberal] leftists around the globe. ..."
Interesting - Obama never ordered an independent probe into 9/11 or invasion of Iraq or on the
Wall Street Collapse. Somehow Russian hacking seems to be more draconian than all the above.
And Russians somehow got into the brains of the disgruntled white population, and controlled
Trump's brain so that he would be voted to power. Then they still control Trump's brain so much
that he is wanting to let NATO countries pay for their security, make Japan, South Korea and everyone
else where US maintains its bases to pay for themselves.
And then suddenly there is a news of a thousand Russian athletes doing well in 2012 London
Olympics due to enhanced drugs. Until now, no one knew about this or heard about it.
It is not that I am supporting Russia all of a sudden. It is just that I am not supporting
the attempt to create enemies out of thin air and make them monstrous as needed, while covering
even more sinister schemes that need public attention.
Obama is part of the same system too that runs everything from behind the curtains. He still
is a good man. But he has only some much room to function within and survive.
A good man is not capable of bombing 7 countries in 8 years' time. People are too naive to believe
that someone could look as nice and sound as nice as Obama and push to advance the agenda of some
of the most evil and power-hungry megalomaniacs on the planet.
I don't know if the Russians provided Wikileaks with the actual emails or not but Wikileaks
like so many news organisations before them released info obtained illegally that they thought
the public had a right to know.
Now Assange has effectively been imprisoned in an Embassy in London for around 5 years on bogus
charges and his reputation was damaged by the same charges - Obviously Obama does not want to
give any credit to Assange and he knows he has played a part in this outrageous persecution.
This would also a could time to remind fellow commentators here about the Nuland - Pyatt conversation
that was recorded by Russia and released. This conversation showed the the involvement of two
high ranking US Politicians in the armed coup in Ukraine where an elected albeit corrupt leader
was forced to flee the country.
The period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from
1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against supposed communists,
as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage
by Soviet agents.
The third Red Scare? *clutches teddy bear*
Only one slight problem ...there aren't any reds in charge in Russia anymore.
My point being, there is no great ideological clash anymore. Assange volunteered the fact the
email data didn't come from the Russians. And whether Trump is better than Hillary is open to
debate.
My perspective from across the ocean has always been that the McCarthy philosophy was the
least admirable episode in recent US history. I doubt many people want to return to that
but surely, demonstrable evidence in either direction is the only antidote to accusations and
conspiracy theories, and is needed now more than ever in this supposed 'post truth' era.
Reply Share
I assume that Obama is being told to do this, and probably by the same people who backed the Clinton
individual for POTUS. The American people must be exceedingly dumb if they fall for this rubbish.
It's almost as if the West, or at least Western Elite circles who have strived to saturate
the airways with Russia-the-bogey-man material since the year dot, can they, on the back of this
one-sided propaganda machine, wheel-out blame directed towards Russia for .... well almost anything
they desire.
Problem is, are the public still eating out of their hands!?
Brext and the Trump victory is suggesting - not all of us by a long way.
If only Barack Hussain Obama had not taken it upon his self to interfere in our referendum
with his clear 'Back of the queue' threat, it may have been possible to not think he is a hypocrite.
what a joke, america has been 'interfering' (i.e. bombing and destroying) how many countries since
1945?? incredible hypocrisy and sickening double-standards.
War propoganda. Will the White Helmets be saving Russian civilians too? I suspect this is
one last roll of the dice by the 'democrats' to keep Trump out of office.
Obama has said the intelligence agencies had the proof that Russia interfered with the election.
With all their proof why order a review? Can't wait until Obama leaves office.
what, is the USA the new Latin America, and Russia the new CIA ? forever meddling surreptitiously
to undermine and overthrow other sovereign nation states democratic processes ? that's just so
unfair
It is a funny joke, but on the essence I would advise to read investigative report "The New
Red Scare" in Harpers. The evidence of Russian government having anything to do with any
hacks is literally non-existing.
The US, heckler of the world for decades, stirring trouble wherever the dart falls, and yet
Russian hackers and North Korean hookers are to blame for 99.9% of the worlds problems. Reality
is, if the US didn't move past its own borders for 10 years the world would be already a much,
much better place.
The Guardian probably shouldn't go along in helping build the new McCarthyist, Cold War narrative,
especially when it's just a bunch of US politicians and media figures repeating politically expedient,
but factually unsupported claims. The Western media is trying to be Hearst Newspapers in the Spanish-American
war.
This is explicitly bad because it allows the suppression of dissent, of creating blacklists,
the military industrial complex to further consolidate power, and to blame all sorts of domestic
failures on shadowing foreign influence. This is exactly what countries like Iran and North
Korea do. Bravo guys, for keep this story going for almost half a year with no substantial proof
whatsoever.
But when Judith Miller, the NYT, George Bush and Hillary Clinton used fake news to kill hundreds
of thousands, Obama told us to get over it, to "look forward and not backward." What a waste
of 8 years.
he suddenly discovered, 2-3 wks ago, that he was enthusiastic about space technology and exploration.
He (that is his ghost writers) published a 1 p. article about his love of space. Fact is, first
thing great-mind Obama did 8yrs ago is gut NASA's budget. He never mentioned space once in 8 yrs.
Suddenly, he is a fan. Creepy ... how does he deal with his hypocritical self every morning?
Political theatre. He will be out of office before anyone will even be asked to take office.
Its hilarious that The Guardian tries to frame US Intelligence as a single cohesive unit. Its
a splintered multi-headed hydra that will never act on this. Once again Obama brings righteous
powerful leadership to the act of being ineffective.
Starring:
Shirtless Putin
Legacy Obama
Hillary "I'm Not Trump" Clinton
Donald "OG Troll" Trump
Super Elite Genius Ninja Russian Hackers
The Poor Defenseless Victim DNC
John "Let's All Just Laugh at The Risotto Recipe and Not Pay Attention to any of my Other Emails"
Podesta
80's synth "rock" and really bright neon clothing
And featuring: Lou Diamond Phillips as.....Guccifer 2.0
The United States has attempted to push its democratic ideologies on countries all over the
world, using means much more direct than hacking. Yet they cannot take a fraction of what they
dish out. If Russia is indeed intervening to aid nationalists around the world, then Russia is
a friend and should be welcomed with open arms. Trump should do the same, and used the powers
of the United States to undermine [neoliberal] leftists around the globe.
No its by the letter actually. Libya, Yemen backed by US, Pakistan, Tunisia had some financial
and military backing. Obama is the drone king. And Ukraine well have you heard of Victoria nuland
before? Regime change in Ukraine cost the taxpayer 5 billion dollars
"... Outrageous how the Russians interfered with the Koch brothers and Soros's electoral process... ..."
"... No one, not the government agencies, not those ominous private security firms, no one presented even a shred of evidence for any involvement of the Russian government. Not even some lackluster ambiguous data, it was all anecdotal stuff, 'confidence' and fluffy rhetoric. ..."
"... The McCarthy-esque paranoia spread by the Clinton campaign to deflect from the content of those emails took foothold it seems. ..."
"... If the evidence were to hand, actually existed, it would have been all over the front pages of the WaPo, NYT and other major news outlets, not just in the US but everywhere else too. Investigating this 'evidence' is, to borrow William Gibson's simile, "Like planning to assassinate a figure out of myth and legend". The usual 'national security considerations' which have been and will continue to be adduced, as reasons for not publishing the evidence is pure triple-distilled BS and pretty much everyone knows that it's BS. ..."
Russia has always been the convenient whipping boy for the United States. We manufactured the
cold war because we needed an enemy to prop up our war economy. We built the Soviet Union into
this monolithic bogey man, spoiling to crush the west, enemies of "freedom," in order to keep
the west scared and pliant and in our pocket. After so-called communism collapsed, we found new
enemies in the middle east but they lacked the staying power. So now it's back to Russia. Maybe
the Russians did hack into the DNC. If so, they merely exposed the damning material. They didn't
write it.
Oh boy the knives are out against Russia, first I read about the 2012 Olympics which even if it
is true I would hold the British Olympic Committee responsible for the failure to find out about
the doping at the time of the Games and not 4 years later. I have just read US, Obama is now pointing
the finger at Russia for the outcome of the US Elections oh dear they are really scraping the
barrell to look for someone to blame instead of finding out why their own people decided to vote
for Trump. This is all typical American hyperbole and nonsense and a concerted effort on America's
efforts to orchestrate the next War.
America is so way behind with any modern services, they apparently do not have their bank cards
with pin or contactless as yet.
Unlucky failed mainstream media lost all confidence of its readership and are now broke. What
will they do next? ask for money saying that they're helping others whilst keeping most of it?
No one, not the government agencies, not those ominous private security firms, no one presented
even a shred of evidence for any involvement of the Russian government. Not even some lackluster
ambiguous data, it was all anecdotal stuff, 'confidence' and fluffy rhetoric.
But if it makes them happy....
The McCarthy-esque paranoia spread by the Clinton campaign to deflect from the content
of those emails took foothold it seems.
If the evidence were to hand, actually existed, it would have been all over the front pages
of the WaPo, NYT and other major news outlets, not just in the US but everywhere else too. Investigating
this 'evidence' is, to borrow William Gibson's simile, "Like planning to assassinate a figure
out of myth and legend". The usual 'national security considerations' which have been and will
continue to be adduced, as reasons for not publishing the evidence is pure triple-distilled BS
and pretty much everyone knows that it's BS.
Yeah sure, just like how it was 'all over the front pages' about what really happened on 9/11,
who was really involved etc.
And don't give me any of that conspiracy theory, tin-foil hat bs either...unless you are able
to be honest about this conspiracy: 19 or 20 strip-club lovin, don't-need-no-takeoff/landing-lessons
jihadists used box-cutters to overpower jet air planes and with the-luck-of-the-century HIT NOT
ONE....BUT TWO skyscrapers at the EXACT SPOT where the 47 concrete -steel inner columns were weak
enough to cause 'pancaking' of the undamaged 60-90 UNDAMAGED FLOORS. Collapsing (and pulverizing
concrete into dust) the building into itself.
And then weirdly enough a small cabal of PNAC signees who in writing had expressed that pax-americana
was going to be 'difficult unless a pearl harbor like event happens' had almost as much Luck-of-the-century
as the jihadists when......WA LA....into their lap.....a new pearl harbor.
Trying to blame one of the most flawed and undemocratic election process's in the Western hemisphere
on the Russians is laughable to the point of hysteria.
The dumb-ed down bigoted electorate is a direct result of decades of a two party political
system, backed up by a compliant media, that fosters mindless patriotism and ignorance rather
than enlightenment and intelligent discussion on the problems facing the country.
Never have I seen a better example of your own dog biting you on the arse!
But Clinton lost the election because the Republicans realised she was certain to be the Democratic
Presidential candidate fifteen years ago and they began their smear campaign against her right
there and then, and a lot of it stuck.
When you add to that tens of thousands on the left like me who voted for her...but would not
campaign for her because we didn't agree with her disastrous blunder in helping to overthrow Qaddafi
in Libya ( a country that is now a feudal backwater) and her stated goals of regime change in
Syria and all the while she had a domestic policy was cosying up to the bankers and Wall Street
elites, whilst ignoring blue collar Americans without jobs and prospects for their future...the
almost inevitable result is Trump as President of the United States.
'Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!'
The US will get what it deserves...and it deserves Trump I'm afraid.
"... Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars. In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre, mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few. ..."
"... This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it 1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news ..."
"... Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political agendas. ..."
"... What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms. ..."
"... In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth" is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the Internet age. ..."
"... The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat ..."
"... According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons. ..."
"... Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat. ..."
"... The CIA whinging about a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might just be the greatest self-awareness fail ever! ..."
"... LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez! They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria. ..."
"... The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days. ..."
"... Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times. ..."
"... In fact, Trump's coalition looks remarkably similar to the one that Scott Walker put together in 2014. ..."
"... Obama in Spartanburg, SC in 2007: And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner. ..."
"... And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed. ..."
Meet the Democrats' proto-Trumps Politico. "In three major states with a governor's
mansion up for grabs in 2018, a big-name, politically active billionaire or multimillionaire
is taking steps toward a run - [Democrat] donors looking to take matters into their own
hands after 2016's gutting losses."
The Evidence to Prove the Russian Hack emptywheel. The headline is a bit off, since the
post's subject is really the evidence required to prove the Russian hack. Some of
which does exist. That said, this is an excellent summary of the state of play. I take issue
with one point:
Crowdstrike reported that GRU also hacked the DNC. As it explains, GRU does this by sending
someone something that looks like an email password update, but which instead is a fake
site designed to get someone to hand over their password. The reason this claim is strong
is because people at the DNC say this happened to them.
First, CrowdStrike is a private security firm, so there's a high likelihood they're talking
their book, Beltway IT being what it is. Second, a result (DNC got phished) isn't "strong"
proof of a claim (GRU did the phishing). We live in a world where 12-year-olds know how to
do email phishing, and a world where professional phishing operations can camouflage themselves
as whoever they like. So color me skeptical absent some unpacking on this point. A second post
from emptywheel,
Unpacking the New CIA Leak: Don't Ignore the Aluminum Tube Footnote , is also well worth
a read.
Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars.
In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about
everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling
and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre,
mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few.
They murder, torture, train hired mercenary proxies (who they are often pretending to oppose),
stage coups of democratically elected govt.'s, interfere with elections, topple regimes, install
ruthless puppet dictators, and generally enslave other nations to western corporate pirates.
They are a rogue band of pirates themselves.
This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering
rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would
take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it
1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news
Conclusion: It isn't the Russians that are interfering with U.S. kangaroo elections, it's
the professionals over at the CIA
Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will
be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent
Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue
embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm.
I've tried to point out on other blogs just how shaky that story in the Washington Post
is, and the response I get is something along the lines of, well, other outlets are also
reporting it, so it must be true. It does me no good to point out that this is the same tactic
used by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. People will believe what they
want to believe.
It may help to point to the history of CIA influence at WaPoo. Counterpunch had a short
piece reminding everyone of Operation Mockingbird (going from memory on that name) where CIA
had reporters on staff at the paper directly taking orders and simultaneously on CIA payroll.
If questioned about CIA's motivation for hating trump, my best guess is that it is because
trump is undermining their project to overthrow assad in syria using nusra rebels. And also
because trump wants to be nice to russia.
I think there's some people in the cia that think they played a major role in winning the
cold war through their support for mujahadeen rebels in afghanistan. I suspect they think they
can beat putin in syria the same way. This is absolutely nutty.
The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we
are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political
agendas.
There's a large number of people that will see through the facade. Right now, Trump supporters
are getting a lesson in how much resistance there can be within the establishment. I'm no Trump
supporter, but I think seeing what these institutions are capable of is a useful exercise for
all involved.
Apologies if this analysis by Robert Parry has already been shared here:
"What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the
creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced
by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms.
In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth"
is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace
of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special
app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the
Internet age.
And then there's the possibility of more direct (and old-fashioned) government enforcement
by launching FBI investigations into media outlets that won't toe the official line. (All
of these "solutions" have been advocated in recent weeks.)
On the other hand, if you do toe the official line that comes from Stengel's public diplomacy
shop, you stand to get rewarded with government financial support. Stengel disclosed in
his interview with Ignatius that his office funds "investigative" journalism projects.
"How should citizens who want a fact-based world combat this assault on truth?" Ignatius
asks, adding: "Stengel has approved State Department programs that teach investigative reporting
and empower truth-tellers."
The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of
the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my
oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat techniques to preserve
truth may turn ou to be overly pessimistic.
Keep in mind the basis of this capitalist economy is Federal debt. They have to spend it
on something. The government doesn't even budget, which is to list priorities and spend according
to need/ability. They put together these enormous bills, add enough to get the votes, which
don't come cheap and then the prez can only pass or veto.
If they wanted to actually budget, taking the old line item veto as a template, they could
break these bills into all their various items, have each legislator assign a percentage value
to each one, put them back together in order of preference and the prez would draw the line.
"The buck stops here."
That would keep powers separate, with congress prioritizing and the prez individually responsible
for deficit spending. It would also totally crash our current "Capitalist" system.
According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has
borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This
is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers
that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter
if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private
partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons.
Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than
we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat.
LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez!
They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria.
There are so many eye-rolling ironies in all this I think my eyeballs might just pop out
of their sockets. And the liberals going out of their way to tout the virtues of the CIA the
very same organization that never shied from assassinating or overthrowing a leftwing president/prime
minister it galls. The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up
as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days.
Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports
club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised
they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times.
My guess is donors are annoyed after the 2014 debacle and are having a hard time rationalizing
a loss to a reality TV show host with a cameo in Home Alone 2.
And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and
collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes
myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America.
Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.
And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed.
That ProPublica piece (
Suspected of Corruption at Home, Powerful Foreigners Find Refuge in the U.S. Pro Publica)
is brutal. Not only do we have to be the shittest corrupt country in the world but we have
to be a safe haven for ever other corrupt politician in the world as long as they have $$.
Can someone just make it all end? Please. There needs to be a maximum wealth where anything
you earn past it just gets automatically redistributed to the poor.
Thanks for the link really important and scary things are going in congress concerning
'fake news' and Russian propaganda and HR 6393 is particularly bad. The EU is also taking steps
to counter 'fake news' as well. Obama claimed that some form of curation is required and
it is happening quickly. People are suggesting that propornot has been debunked. That does
not matter anymore. The Obama regime and the MSM don't care that have gotten the message
out.
And the people behind this are really deranged check out Adam Schiff calling Tucker Carlson
a Kremlin stooge for even suggesting that there is no certainty that Russia leaked the emails
to Wikileaks.
After all, the media went all in for Hillary and spent huge amounts of time explaining why
Trump is unfit. But they lost.
And now our efforts on behalf of al Queada are failing in Syria and more hysteria ensues.
See for example:
The email saga lost a provable set of sources a long time ago. Before the files were given
to Wikileaks it was already too late to determine which people did it. So-called forensic evidence
of these computers only tell us that investigators either found evidence of a past compromise
or that people want us to believe they did. Since the compromise was determined after the fact,
the people with access could have done anything to the computers, including leave a false trail.
The core problem is that since security for all of these machines, including the DNC's email
server and most likely many of those from Team R, was nearly non-existent nearly nothing useful
can be determined. The time to learn something about a remote attacker, when it's possible
at all, is while the machine is being attacked assuming it has never been compromised before.
If the attacker's machine has also been compromised then you know pretty much nothing unless
you can get access to it.
As far as physical access protection goes. If the machine has been left on and unattended
or is not completely encrypted then the only thing that might help is a 24 hour surveillance
camera pointed at the machine.
Forensic evidence in compromised computers is significantly less reliable than DNA and hair
samples. It's much too easy for investigators to frame another party by twiddling some bits.
Anyone that thinks that even well intentioned physical crime investigators have never gotten
convictions with bad or manipulated evidence has been watching and believing way too many crime
oriented mysteries. "Blindspot" is not a documentary.
As for projecting behaviors on a country by calling it a "state action", Russia or otherwise,
implying that there is no difference between independent and government sponsored actions,
that is just silly.
Apt observation from Gareth: "I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election
so as to force him into a defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing
relations with Russia and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has
the guts to make some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even
threatened to take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning. "
Essentially after WaPo scandal it is prudent to view all US MSM as yellow press.
Notable quotes:
"... The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news. ..."
"... As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print WaPo advertisers. Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they advertise in the Washington Post. ..."
"... Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist. ..."
"... The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or we'll delegitimate your election.' ..."
"... Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus diverting the wrath of the rank and file. ..."
"... About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the names of those who purveyed WMD stories. ..."
"... Job #1 always is suppressing the Sanders faction. Not beating Trump or the Republicans. They want control of their little pond. ..."
"... Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a liar or cheat) Hillary. ..."
"... All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real issues at hand about our political system, which is a two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments. ..."
"... If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods of selecting candidates. ..."
"... Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets. ..."
"... the idea that Saudi (or other Middle Eastern states) also intervened (with money), is not more credible? ..."
"... Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians. ..."
"... So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies know it was the Russians, really? ..."
"... Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported. ..."
"... I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted for Christmas. ..."
"... It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging. ..."
"... The world is flat . Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing the article because I think it is hilarious. ..."
"... Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell what they are sitting in.. ..."
"... Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic. ..."
"... What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a NeoCon sympathizer is installed. ..."
"... Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia. All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS. ..."
"... The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again. ..."
"... That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything they can to cast the blame elsewhere. ..."
"... I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future that means the neocons vs Trump. ..."
"... "The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude. ..."
"... The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. ..."
"... Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with or without the establishment coronation queen. ..."
"... "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students. ..."
"... Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from him. ..."
"... WaPo seems allied with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon sector which was asserting itself in Syria. ..."
"... Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. ..."
"... Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats, I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand that this was happening. ..."
"... rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently superior economic governance. [12] ..."
"... I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However, Trump is a survivable disasterwith Hillary that would have been the end. ..."
"... If Trump has many Goldman guys, is it a case of 'keeping your enemies close?' ..."
"... First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula: ..."
"... Suppress the left ..."
"... Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election ..."
"... Use identity politics as a distraction. ..."
"... There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies. ..."
"... The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump, at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will happen. ..."
"... There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed, which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him. He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because he won't even try to do anything for his base. ..."
"... I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies." We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees. ..."
"... By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority. ..."
"... Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power permanently. Why do I think this is not over? ..."
"... I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling. Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution ..."
"... At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday the Senate passed the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. ..."
"... " establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth! ..."
"... Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS. ..."
"... This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin these clowns once and for all. ..."
"... These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip. ..."
"... Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's Love Child". ..."
I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election so as to force him into a
defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing relations with Russia
and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has the guts to make
some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even threatened to
take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning.
This hysteria over Russia is getting downright dangerous. The people pushing that story will
seemingly stop at nothing to delegitimize the election results.
The Post's Marc Fisher was on the PBS Newshour last night. He talked about Alex Jones. They
probably didn't expect the pushback from Yves, Truthdig, etc. The Establishment often underestimates
dissenters.
Real fake news, like Jones, benefits from the fake news charge. Their readers hate the MSM.
I wonder if the same ethic can develop on the left.
The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet
has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo
the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news.
I heard Stephen Colbert lump Alex Jones together w/Wikileaks as if they were the same "fake
news". I have also repeatedly heard Samantha Bee refer to Julian Assange as a rapist. Sigh. Both
of those comments are "fake news". The allegations against JA are tissue thin and Wikileaks has
NEVER been challenged about the truth of their releases. Please correct me if I am wrong.
"just as the internet has destroyed their advertising." Shouldn't that be "destroyed their ability to sell advertising?"
As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print
WaPo advertisers.
Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they
advertise in the Washington Post.
Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist.
The Wapo's trying to steal Craigslist business with online job listings. Looks like an opportunity
to have some fun for creatives.
Boss WaPo OwnerMan Bezos is very rich. He bought WaPo as a propaganda outlet. He is prepared
to lose a lot of money keeping it "open for propaganda." Naming and shaming and boycotting every advertiser WaPo has could certainly embarass WaPo and
perhaps diminish its credibility-patina for Bezoganda purposes. It is certainly worth trying.
The WaPo brand also owns a lot of other moneymaking entities like Kaplan testing and test-prepping
I believe. It would be a lot harder to boycott those because millions of people find them to be
important. But perhaps a boycott against them until WaPo sells them off to non Bezos ownership
would be worth trying.
Perhaps a savage boycott against Amazon until Bezos fires everyone at WaPo involved in this
McCarthy-list and related articles . . . and humiliates them into unhireability anywhere else
ever again?
The Dem Liberals (Joan Walsh etc). on the twitter are going full throttle with this, it's a
twofer as Joan is using this to attack Sanders supporters for not being on the front lines of
Russia Fear.
The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or
we'll delegitimate your election.' (Apparently TrumpCo has not delivered a convincing submission
yet.)
Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus
diverting the wrath of the rank and file. Evidently it's also going to be used against the Sanders
faction of the Democrats. About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names
of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the
names of those who purveyed WMD stories.
Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get
the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a
liar or cheat) Hillary.
Perhaps they should consider that it could be worse, a foreign nation could be arming people
and encouraging them to topple the government we have like what we're doing in Syria. It isn't
like the very sharp divisions elsewhere haven't resulted in civil war.
All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real
issues at hand about our political system, which is a
two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential
elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments.
If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia
nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What
is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods
of selecting candidates.
Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing
compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to
filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets.
The popular vs. electoral vote look up the rules next time you play.
Recount to investigate without much evidence is something senator McCarthy would do.
Russia and the idea that Saudi (or other Middle Eastern states) also intervened (with money),
is not more credible?
Coincidentally, all these urgent initiatives will lead to replacing Trump with Hillary as president.
"I will tear down the very building just to achieve my Pyrrhic victory."
Thank you, sorry Dems, Boris Badunov did not swing the election. If you want *hard* evidence
(not fake news) of a foreign government influencing the election you might have a look at the
beheading, gay-killing, women-supressing tyrannical monarchy known as The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
and ask whether it made sense for them to be the *#1* contributor to your candidate.
Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say
what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic
keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that
ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks
by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians.
So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies
know it was the Russians, really?
"They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding - which they say was also reached
with high confidence - that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee's computer systems
in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information
they gleaned from the Republican networks."
Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly
to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported.
I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with
the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted
for Christmas.
It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could
go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the
past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging.
Especially when dealing with a President Trump. He's already made his distaste for the WaPo
clear. We are entering a new, crazy, dangerous era of press-presidential relations. All the more
reason for the newspapers to behave responsibly - is that too much to ask?
The world is flat .
Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing
the article because I think it is hilarious.
Also, Bradford deLong should be included with Krugman and Friedman, though the length and width
of deLong's connections don't seem to have the same acceleration, energy, or viscosity, as the
other two. There are also olfactory and temporal differences.
Come to think of it, I also don't think Krugman Turdman or Friedman
Flathead would have to grovel to Neera "I'm a loyal soldier" Tanden and John "Done, so
think about something else" Podesta to get a family member a "meritocratic" job.
If Russia is so dangerous, then anyone who mishandles classified information (say, by storing
it on a personal server) should be prosecuted, shouldn't they?
Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that
got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell
what they are sitting in.. I also wonder just where the line is between those who actually buy
into this hysteria, and those who simply feel justified in using whatever means they can to discredit
Trump and overturn the election. I think there's a lot of overlap and grey area there in many
people's minds.
Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels
in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic.
What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to
either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a
NeoCon sympathizer is installed.
Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia.
All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on
more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS.
The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again.
Apparently she's in opposition to much of her party leadership on this, so if they ditch her in
the future and get someone better I may consider voting for them again. The reality of Trump as
president is going to be bad enough, attempting to sabotage the transition isn't doing anyone
any favors. I don't like Obama at all, but he wants a clean, peaceful transfer of power, and on
that issue at least he's correct.
That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is
an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything
they can to cast the blame elsewhere.
I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future that means
the neocons vs Trump.
Hillary vs Trump, invoking Russia now, is about fighting the last war. That one was over more
than a month ago. It's more convoluted to say one team still desires to continue the fight.
"The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President
Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are,
but its the f#ckin CIA, dude.
The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember
WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I
have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. But that is just me. From reading
the NYT comments on the OBama Russia election hack article, the NYT commenters have en mass swallowed
the story hook, line and sinker. They apparently don't need evidence and have completely loss
any sort of functioning long term memory.
Based on the fact that she was hidden more than actually performing on the campaign trail,
that is a possibility. She may have very well been our own puppet government member that some were ready to install
here just like we tend to do over in other nations. No real marbles needed since she wouldn't
actually be running things. It's come to my attention that we seem to be inching closer and closer
to third world here and those places rarely have vibrant democracies.
Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from
area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article
is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be
infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with
or without the establishment coronation queen.
"Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline
itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students.
Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump
on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from
him.
Sifting the election through a Peter Turchin filter, Sanders' run was a response to 'popular
immiseration' while the choice-of-billionaires was 'intra-elite competition'. WaPo seems allied
with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon
sector which was asserting itself in Syria.
I needed
Jalen & Jacoby to sooth me to sleep last night, after seeing the last chart (Fig. 14.4) from
Turchin's latest book. You can see it by hitting Ctrl-End from this
pdf . If he's correct,
this election was just the warm-up for 2020. Crikey.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange,
called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly
not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats,
I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional
Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've
had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand
that this was happening.
I hope people will vigorously lobby their Representatives and Senators, and pay attention to
who the genuine progressives are in the 2018 primaries.
Like ordinary citizens, although for the opposite reasons, elites are losing faith in democratic
government and its suitability for reshaping societies in line with market imperatives. Public
Choice's disparaging view of democratic politics as a corruption of market justice, in the
service of opportunistic politicians and their clientele, has become common sense among elite
publics-as has the belief that market capitalism cleansed of democratic politics will not only
be more efficient but also virtuous and responsible. [11]
Countries like China are complimented
for their authoritarian political systems being so much better equipped than majoritarian democracy,
with its egalitarian bent, to deal with what are claimed to be the challenges of 'globalization'
-- a
rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during
the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently
superior economic governance. [12]
Right, the euphemisms have been done away with. I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However,
Trump is a survivable disasterwith Hillary that would have been the end.
In the long run, a Clinton presidency would be far more damaging.
First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton
was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go
and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula:
Suppress the left
Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election
Use identity politics as a distraction.
A Trump victory forces questions on the conventional wisdom (not really wisdom), and forces
changes. At best, they can hope to shove another Obama that is attractive on the outside, but
will betray people, but even that will be harder because people now are more watchful. Not to
mention, the mainstream media has lost its power.
There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a
nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that
anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies.
The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump,
at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front
war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are
going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will
happen.
There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed,
which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him.
He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because
he won't even try to do anything for his base.
I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies."
We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees.
The left must be vigilant and smart. There is opportunity here, but sidetracking on fake news,
pop vote, etc. doesn't gain much in terms of opposition.
I think you're possibly right, and I just couldn't pull the lever to vote for Trump. Sometimes
we just have to be true to ourselves and hope it works out.
By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed
sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority.
All
the intelligent agencies are now in lock step over Russian intervention. How do they let this
result stand? Trump obviously realizes his win is now in play and has gone after those same agencies
pointing out their gross incompetence.
Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power
permanently. Why do I think this is not over?
Michael Moore agrees with you something is, or might be (more accurate description of what
he is said to have said, I think), brewing, according to him, or rather, his intuition .
I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling.
Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color
revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution
What the State Department and MSM have pleasantly referred to in the past as a bloodless coup.
See Ukraine, Brazil, Argentina et al
At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday
the Senate passed the
"Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy
Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference
Report.
According to Senator Portman's press release, the Bill "will improve the ability of the United
States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center
housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout
the U.S. government." The bill also creates a "grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society
and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work."
While the passage of this bill seems very coincidentally timed given recent events, it was
actually introduced in March. Not sure whether it simply followed a normal legislative track,
or was brought back from the dead recently, etc.
" establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize
counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth!
It is important to find work for our newly minted graduates of marketing, psychology and sociology
as well as those graduates of the communication school and the arts. The need of our post-industrial
information age is to make things up as opposed to just making things.
Our liberal nation has promised our children that after they have enslaved themselves through
student debt they will find work. The work they find is likely to be meaningful only to the creditors
who wish to be repaid.
The graduates will find idealistic rationales like patriotism or making
"'Merica Grate Again" to soothe their corrupted souls while keeping the fake news as fresh as
a steamy load.
Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They
are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the
Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed
to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian
for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters
(Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS.
From yesterday's links but seems appropriate. This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the
US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible
to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin
these clowns once and for all.
That may be but what we are seeing now is just an echo of the Clinton/Soros plan, and not even
close to the disaster that would result from having Soros et al at the helm. My guess is that
the CIA are now simply using gullible Republicans (yes, there is certainly some redundancy there)
as useful idiots, but this dynamic significantly weakens the original plan.
Amy Davidson ends her article with this paragraph.
And that is why the rallies are likely to endure: to serve as calibrators of or infomercials
for what Trump believes that "the public" wants. One can waste a lot of time delving into the
question of Trump's psychological need for affirmation . What is politically more important is
how he might use the set piece of a cheering crowd to brush aside other considerations, particularly
those involving the checks on the Presidency, and the willingness of those in other areas of the
government, or in the White House itself, to exercise them. Should courts worry about "a lot of
angry people"? One important point not to let go of is that a crowd that the President assembles
and the broader public are two very different things, no matter how big the arena, or how filled
it is with love . A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the
midterm elections. Maybe those will surprise Trump.
News flash for Amy. When a narcissist uses the word "love" it doesn't mean what you think it
does. Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling
to Donald. Nothing more, nothing less.
A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the midterm elections.
Maybe those will surprise Trump.
We remind ourselves that no one can help us but us. We empower ourselves.
So, it goes for today, as it did in 2008. Such moderation!!! A better opportunity will come
in two years!!!! I said that to myself 8 years ago, but I didn't hear much of it from the media
then. And we (not just I) say that now.
As for crowds reacting and it being fulfilling for the one being looked up on again, it's
the same human psychology, whether the guy on stage is a rock star, Lenin, Roosevelt, Pol Pot,
the next savior or Idi Amin. How much love is there for anyone in any long term relationship,
except to affirm and be affirmed by 'love' everyday, in small acts or otherwise, much less some
politicians you interact through abstractions, like, through the media or stories told to us.
"Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling to
Donald. Nothing more, nothing less."
These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that
he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary
had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was
much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip.
Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on
the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is
now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's
Love Child".
Patriotic Correctness is a useful term and concept. Otherwise, the article was extremely long-winded
and boring. Editor to writer: "I need you to fill 3,000 words worth of space with this 50-word
idea "
I don't consider Trump a compromise candidate and that's largely because I don't see him actually
moving the country forward in the right direction. Sanders, for me, would have been a compromise
from the point of view of he probably wouldn't have moved us far enough fast enough for me but
he would have set us leftward instead of ever rightward and that IS an improvement.
The mainstream media is doubling down on imagined pro-Russian heresies in a fashion not seen
since the Reformation. Back then the Catholic Church held a monopoly on ideology. They lost it
to an unruly bunch of rebellious Protestants who were assisted by the new technology of the printing
press.
Nowadays various non-conformist internet sites, with the help of the new technology of the
internet, are challenging the MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion. To show how much things
have changed, back in the 60's, dissidents such as the John Birch Society were limited to issuing
pamphlets to expound on their theories of Russians taking over America. In a very ironic role-reversal,
today it is the increasingly desperate Washington Post that more closely matches the paranoia
of the John Birch Society as it accuses non-conformist media heretics who are threatening the
MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion - of allowing Russians to take over America.
But let's spare a thought for poor Jeff Bezos. He basically thought he was purchasing the medieval
equivalent of a Bishopry when he bought the WaPo. But now after running six anti-Trump editorials
each and every day for the past 18 months, in which his establishment clergy engaged in an ever
increasing hysteria-spiral trying to outdo each other in turning Trump into Hitler, it ends up
Bezos' side lost the election anyway. It's like he bought a Blockbuster store in 2008 and never
even thought about Netflix!
And so now the MSM is literally launching an Establishment Inquisition by issuing "indexes"
of prohibited heretical websites.
Where will this lead? The grossly paranoiac reading is the Establishment's Counter Reformation
is laying the ideological groundwork for a sort of coup d'etat to be followed by the rule of a
goodthink junta. In this case we have to start calculating how many divisions are loyal to Trump's
gang of generals versus how many are loyal to Obama's generals. A more moderate reading is that
with these anti-Russian headlines, the Establishment is attempting to pressure Trump to stay the
Establishment course on foreign policy and to appoint a SecState who is hostile to Russia. And
in the best case these crazy MSM ramblings are just the last gasps of soon to be extinct media
mammoths.
One thing you can say about Trump is that he is most certainly not a wuss. In the face of this
firestorm about Russian influence sources say Trump is going to nominate Rex Tillerson, who is
very pro-Putin, as Secretary of State!
I wonder what happens when they don't confirm any of his nominees? Is this a case of 'I will nominee so many you don't like, you will be forced to confirm at
least a few?'
Yes I do because Trump is reportedly naming NeoCon John Bolton as undersecretary. That's going
to be a package deal; if they reject Tillerson then Bolton is gone as well. The NeoCons are desperate
to get Bolton into the Administration.
Bolton's job will be to go on talk shows and defend Trump's policies. If he doesn't do it then
he gets fired.
And so from the rest of the world's point of view, Tillerson is the carrot but Bolton remains
in the background as the stick in case anyone starts thinking Trump is too soft and decides to
test him.
Praetorian Guard Redux. Any nation that embraces secret police will find itself ruled by them in short order.
Notable quotes:
"... Yes, the CIA's sterling reputation around the world for truth-telling and integrity might be sullied if someone doubts their claims... https://t.co/2uyQXvFdOK - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016 ..."
"... When is it hardest to get people not to blindly accept anonymous, evidence-free CIA claims? When it's very pleasing to believe them. - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016 ..."
"... "...there is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it." ..."
"... "...Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said." ..."
"... Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections. ..."
"... In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe. CIA operatives gave millions of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then an unprecedented, clandestine propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church. ..."
"... "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets," recounted F. Mark Wyatt , the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2½ decades of direct support to the Christian Democrats. ..."
"... This template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash. ..."
"... In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties," detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove him anyway. ..."
"... Obama & The Presstitutes: Legalized DOMESTIC Propaganda to American Citizens The National Defense Authorization Act of July 2013 (NDAA) included an amendment that legalized the use of propaganda on the American public. The amendment - originally proposed by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 allowed U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population. ..."
"... This Russia CIA Program aimed at US Citizens is part of the OBAMA FRAUD to cover the crimes of Clinton et al. The MSM and especially the NYT is the epi-center of "Fake News" ..."
"... Hillary was a big threat to Russia security. Trump was willing to work with Russia. Does anyone really believe Russia has absolutely no part to play in Trump's win? Think again. ..."
"... Thinking is one thing. Proving it is another. And what do you "think" about the CIA and Victoria Nuland's role in toppling the elected government in the Ukraine? ..."
"... After a year of MSM propaganda and lies, you are now obsessed with "fake news" ironically the kind that totally obliterated your propaganda for the lies that they were. ..."
"... Go back to the 1960s. Phillp Graham and his wife rans Wa Post. Phillip got a young girl friend and started going off the reservation saying WaPo was becoming a mouthpiece for the See Eye Ah. He was going to divorce his wife. He then was commited to an insane asylum, released and then killed himself with a shotgun. ..."
"... There have to be good, patriotic Americans within CIA These intelligence reports are obvious fictions: The agitprop of a neocon/zionist Deep State that fully intends to expand the wars, target Iran and Russia, while sending American blood and treasure to pay their bill. ..."
"... Kennedy knew that the CIA was nothing but a group of Useless, Meddling, Lying Assholes, and made it known Publicly. Unfortunately for him, things didn't turn out all that well. "Wetwork" is never in shortage with that crew. ..."
"... Praetorian Guard Redux. Any nation that embraces secret police will find itself ruled by them in short order. ..."
"... Most CIA directors are/were members of the Rockefeller/CFR including: Morell, Petraeus, Hayden, Tenet, Deutch, Woolsey, Gates, Webster, Casey, Turner, Bush, Colby, Schlesinger, Helms, McCone and Allen Dulles. Also every Fed chairman since WW2. See member lists at cfr dot org. ..."
"... The domestic policies of both CFR wings are the same: the maintenance of the American Empire... There is no possibility of [outsiders] capturing power at the top of either party... ..."
Overnight the media propaganda wars escalated after the late Friday release
of an article by the Washington Post (which last week
admitted to using unverified, or fake, news in an attempt to smear other so-called "fake news" sites) according to which a secret
CIA assessment found that Russia sought to tip last month's U.S. presidential election in Donald Trump's favor, a conclusion presented
without any actual evidence, and which drew an extraordinary, and angry rebuke from the president-elect's camp.
"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Trump's transition team said, launching
a broadside against the spy agency. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history.
It's now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.' "
The Washington Post report comes after outgoing President Barack Obama
ordered a review of all cyberattacks that took place during the 2016 election cycle , amid growing calls from Congress for more
information on the extent of Russian interference in the campaign. The newspaper cited officials briefed on the matter as saying
that individuals with connections to Moscow provided WikiLeaks with email hacked from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign chief and others.
Without a shred of evidence provided, and despite Wikileaks' own on the record denial that the source of the emails was Russian,
the WaPo attack piece claims the email messages were steadily leaked out via WikiLeaks in the months before the election, damaging
Clinton's White House run. Essentially, according to the WaPo, the Russians' aim was to help Donald Trump win and not just undermine
the U.S. electoral process, hinting at a counter-Hillary intent on the side of Putin.
"It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to
help Trump get elected," the newspaper quoted a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation last week to key
senators as saying. " That's the consensus view."
CIA agents told the lawmakers it was "quite clear" - although it was not reported exactly what made it "clear" - that electing
Trump was Russia's goal, according to officials who spoke to the Post, citing growing evidence from multiple sources.
And yet, key questions remain unanswered, and the CIA's report fell short of being a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17
intelligence agencies the newspaper said, for two reasons. As we reported in November "
The "Fact" That 17 Intelligence Agencies Confirmed Russia is Behind the Email Hacks Isn't Actually A "Fact ", and then also because
aside from so-called "consensus", there is - once again - no evidence, otherwise the appropriate agencies would have long since released
it, and this is nothing more than another propaganda attempt to build tension with Russia. In fact, the WaPo admits as much in the
following text, which effectively destroys the article's entire argument :
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia's intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence
agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency's assessment,
in part because some questions remain unanswered.
For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin "directing" the identified
individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official,
were "one step" removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to
participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.
* * *
"I'll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there's clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence - even now,"
said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team.
"There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."
And since even the WaPo is forced to admit that intelligence agents don't have the proof that Russian officials directed the identified
individuals to supply WikiLeaks with the hacked Democratic emails, the best it can do is speculate based on circumstantial inferences,
especially since, as noted above, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has
denied links with Russia's government
, putting the burden of proof on the side of those who challenge the Wikileaks narrative. So far that proof has not been provided.
Nonetheless, at the White House, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Obama called for the cyberattacks review earlier this
week to ensure "the integrity of our elections."
"This report will dig into this pattern of malicious cyberactivity timed to our elections, take stock of our defensive capabilities
and capture lessons learned to make sure that we brief members of Congress and stakeholders as appropriate," Schultz said.
Taking the absurdity to a whole new level, Obama wants the report completed before his term ends on January 20, by none other
than a proven and confirmed liar : " The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials
said. " In other words, the report that the Kremlin stole the election should be prepared by the time Trump is expected to be sworn
in.
"We are going to make public as much as we can," the spokesman added. "This is a major priority for the president."
The move comes after Democrats in Congress pressed the White House to reveal details, to Congress or to the public, of Russian
hacking and disinformation in the election.
On Oct. 7, one month before the election, the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence announced
that "the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political
organizations." "These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process," they said.
Trump dismissed those findings in an interview published Wednesday by Time magazine for its "Person of the Year" award. Asked
if the intelligence was politicized, Trump answered: "I think so."
"I don't believe they interfered," he said. "It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in
New Jersey."
Worried that Trump will sweep the issue under the rug after his inauguration, seven Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee
called on Nov. 29 for the White House to declassify what it knows about Russian interference. The seven have already been briefed
on the classified details, suggesting they believe there is more information the public should know. On Tuesday this week, leading
House Democrats called on Obama to give members of the entire Congress a classified briefing on Russian interference, from hacking
to the spreading of fake news stories to mislead U.S. voters.
Republicans in Congress have also promised hearings into Russian activities once the new administration comes in.
Obama's homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said the cyberinterference goes back to the 2008 presidential race, when both the
Obama and John McCain campaigns were hit by malicious computer intrusions.
* * *
An interesting aside to emerge from last night's hit piece and the Trump team response is that there is now a full blown turf
war between Trump and the CIA, as NBC's Chuck Todd observed in a series of late Friday tweets:
The implication in the Trump transition statement is that he doesn't believe a single thing from the CIA
To which Glenn Greenwald provided the best counterargument:
Yes, the CIA's sterling reputation around the world for truth-telling and integrity might be sullied if someone doubts
their claims...https://t.co/2uyQXvFdOK - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald)
December 10, 2016
When is it hardest to get people not to blindly accept anonymous, evidence-free CIA claims? When it's very pleasing to
believe them. - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald)
December 10, 2016
However, of the mini Tweetstorm, this was the most important aspect: the veiled suggestion that in addition to Russia, both the
FBI and the Obama presidency prevented Hillary from becoming the next US president...
While Obama's FBI director smeared Hillary, Obama sat on evidence of Russian efforts to elect Trump that had basis in evidence.
... which in light of these stunning new unproven and baseless allegations, she may very well have renewed aspirations toward.
* * *
So while there is no "there" there following the WaPo's latest attempt to fan the rarging fires of evidence-free propaganda, or
as the WaPo itself would say "fake news", here is why the story has dramatic implications. First, the only two quotes which matter:
"...there is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
and a member of the Trump transition team. "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."
* * *
"...Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James
Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said."
And then the summary:
Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote,
then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian
hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely
disinformation used by US agencies.
Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently
on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College
vote, similar to the 1960s novel " Seven Days in May
."
Once again it's a case of "watch the shiny object"... The "secret CIA report" seems to focus on who leaked the documents to Wikileaks
and not the content of those documents... The left have not refuted that the emails are real, just who leaked them to Assange...
Fuck 'em, if they keep Trump from the white house there will be revolution...
"Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections
in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist
Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 - an average of once
in every nine competitive elections."
In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back against some of the continent's
most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats
and helped ensure their electoral victory against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties
in Europe. CIA operatives gave millions of dollars
to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then
an unprecedented, clandestine propaganda campaign
: This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing
campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the
Catholic Church.
"We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses,
for posters, for pamphlets," recounted F. Mark Wyatt
, the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2½ decades of direct support to the Christian
Democrats.
This
template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring down the North Vietnamese
government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal
Democratic Party was backed with secret American funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations
helped Christian parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash.
In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of nearly four million dollars
was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties,"
detailed a Senate
inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at
the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove him anyway."
A US Official has claimed the Russians are out to get Merkel in a cyber campaign.
A CIA probe confirms Moscow helped Trump win the election.
"In both cases, said the official, Mr. Putin's campaigns in both Europe and the US are intended to disrupt and discredit the
Western concept of democracy by promoting extremist candidates, parties, and political figures."
Both WAPO , & C.TODD would NOT be missed. Per Todd: "How helpful is it for the CIA's reputation around the world if the next US
questions their findings so publicly?"
Todd is concerned about The CIA's "Reputation" ?????? AS IF its current rep is wonderful??? - TODD: There is no "reputation"
to damage!!! Lame brain !!
17 intelligence agencies? Is this some dystopian record?
"There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."
So these 'intelligence' agencies are in the same boat as the pizzgate crowd. The main difference is after failing to produce
any actionable evidence the pizzagate crowd will loose interest and move on. We still have to give the bureaucrats at these intelligence
agencies a paycheck next month.
Russians are training the illegals in secret camps in the Sierra Madre mountains before they are released into the US. I was there
and saw it. Bigfoot was guarding the entrance.
Obama & The Presstitutes: Legalized DOMESTIC Propaganda to American Citizens The National Defense Authorization Act of July
2013 (NDAA) included an amendment that legalized the use of propaganda on the American public. The amendment - originally proposed
by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids
information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 allowed
U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population.
Signed by .. Obama. This Act formalized systems in place covertly or ad hoc for some time.
Hillary was a big threat to Russia security. Trump was willing to work with Russia. Does anyone really believe Russia has
absolutely no part to play in Trump's win? Think again. They should and I think they did! Whether it was an illegal intervention
would be another question.
Thinking is one thing. Proving it is another. And what do you "think" about the CIA and Victoria Nuland's role in toppling
the elected government in the Ukraine? How about NATO expansion for decades under Clinton, Bush and Obama? Aren't these DIRECT
THREATS against Putin and Russia? Yes, they most certainly are. Fuck the CIA They do far more harm than good for the people in
the USA.
Hillary was a threat to life on Earth. She made it clear her intent was to wage war against Russia (and probably China). Obviously
the US has been conducting cyberwarfare, psyops and propaganda against Russia, as this has been documented in the past. Russia's
response may merely have been presenting authentic information via RT/Sputnik/etc. and putting clips of Putin online where he
sounds like a rational human being. In other words, they may be guilty of nothing more than providing Americans with the truth,
much as America did with the Soviets.
That was exactly what this brought to mind for me - a John F Kennedy moment, but not his assassination. I was thinking of an earlier
time well before this., ie, Nikita Krushev banging the table at the UN with his shoe. The state of the nation - people were in
a panic because Russia let it be known it was about to bring nuclear missiles into Cuba. It was a ploy by the Russians and Krushev
to de-escalate the tensions between the two countries over our attempt to take out Castro and the Bay of Pigs Invasion.
Fade to today. Why would the Russians care who won the presidency? Hillary the war monger or the Donald, the negotiator? Ahh,
maybe because we just brought into Turkey then consequently moved fifty nuclear missiles into position along Russia's border?
Who authorized and ordered that? Would that be any cause for worry by Russia or its citizenry? Is that or is it not total insanity?
Total fuckery? Obama and Hillary have put us four minutes away from a worldwide nuclear holocaust and now they are trying to make
Trump look like he was in bed with Putin. I don't know what Trump is but I do know he and Putin are the only two people on the
same wavelength right now, thank the electoral college.
You are delusional, dishonest, ignrorant, and proud of it. Fortunately, YOU LOST.
After a year of MSM propaganda and lies, you are now obsessed with "fake news" ironically the kind that totally obliterated
your propaganda for the lies that they were.
After a year of cackling laughter when every two bit dictator and NWO globalist bad mouthed Trump, like a child, you are OUTRAGED
that Russia might have not wanted Hillary to take power and make war against it. At least Russia didn't PUBLICALLY attempt to
influence an American election LIKE HILLARY'S NWO GOONS DID FROM THEIR EXECUTIVE OFFICES.
The popular vote: Ignoring fraud, which was proven in the Michigan recount, Hillary supporters are trying to make hay out of
her garnering 2.6 million more votes than Trump. Besides the fact that this is irrelevant in a campaign for the electoral college,
2.6 million votes is only somewhere @0.7% of the US population. That's hardly a mandate, especially when we consider she only
had that dubious edge over Trump, not the entire playing field. There were other candidate you know.
I'm sorry, I forgot, YOU LOST, and you think you can spoil our good time with the assertion that the better candidate was Hillary.
LOL, losers.
Trump is a wildcard, we all knew that when we voted for him.
Hillary is a witchcard and we all knew what she would do.
Bernie wasn't even a choice, Hillary had him as a straw man opponent.
Rand Paul to me was the best choice but establishment didn't want him, Gay media wanted Trump because they thought Hillary
could beat him and many of the Ron Paulers still butthurt over him endorsing Romney. Never mind Ron Paul didn't even put up a
fight when they robbed him of the nomination he won.
Go back to the 1960s. Phillp Graham and his wife rans Wa Post. Phillip got a young girl friend and started going off the reservation
saying WaPo was becoming a mouthpiece for the See Eye Ah. He was going to divorce his wife. He then was commited to an insane
asylum, released and then killed himself with a shotgun.
Phil's wife was the daughter of Eugene Meyer who ran The Fed.
Watergate was not what you were told. Nixon wanted tariffs and the Rockefellers (who myguess started the CIA - David was an
OSS officer in WW2) got mad at their boy Nixon. Nixon hated George Bush and did not trust him. All the info the Wa Post got on
Nixon was C**IIA info to Ben Bradley, editor of Wa Post, probably from George Bush. All of Nixons,relatively minor, dirt was passed
from See EYE Ah to Wa Post. Woodward and Bernstein just typed it up.
Bradley was brther in law to Cord Meyer (operation mockingbird). Cord's wife (Mary Pinchot-Meyer) had an ongoing affair with
JFK. After he was killed, she was gonna spill the beans like Marilyn Monroe. She was killed taking a walk. Ben BRadley and the
See EYE Ah rush to her apartment to get her diary.
the CIA has been arming Al Qaeda and (likely) 'ISIS'.
It is very probable US forces will be killed by these weapons.
Add to that the small issue of the hundreds of thousands of people, Christian and non-Salafist/non-Wahhabi Muslims murdered
by the Islamopsycho and Acadami etc. private western mercs.
There have to be good, patriotic Americans within CIA These intelligence reports are obvious fictions: The agitprop of
a neocon/zionist Deep State that fully intends to expand the wars, target Iran and Russia, while sending American blood and treasure
to pay their bill.
And now they are going to try to overturn an election in which Clinton not only lost by the rules of our system, but in which
Clinton's 'popular vote' win was the product of illegal immigrant and other fraudulent voting.
all of which means they are also willing to risk civil war.
Kennedy knew that the CIA was nothing but a group of Useless, Meddling, Lying Assholes, and made it known Publicly. Unfortunately
for him, things didn't turn out all that well. "Wetwork" is never in shortage with that crew.
Most CIA directors are/were members of the Rockefeller/CFR including: Morell, Petraeus, Hayden, Tenet, Deutch, Woolsey, Gates,
Webster, Casey, Turner, Bush, Colby, Schlesinger, Helms, McCone and Allen Dulles. Also every Fed chairman since WW2. See member
lists at cfr dot org.
"I have discussed Council on Foreign Relations Team A vs. Team B for 35 years. I have seen two anti-CFR people get through
the [presidential] screening... The domestic policies of both CFR wings are the same: the maintenance of the American Empire...
There is no possibility of [outsiders] capturing power at the top of either party..."
"... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
"... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
"... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
"... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
"... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
"... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
"... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
"... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
"... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
"... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
"... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
"... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
"... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
"... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
"... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
"... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
"... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
"... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
"... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's
involvement in US politics?
The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.
The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.
As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.
Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media
bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion
that is being suggested.
And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set
up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table
modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments
that could fuckup ARM based computers.
Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become
a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside
the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists
fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support
for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped
Putin wiped the terrorists out...
Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists
in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege
Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates'
in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.
I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as
he deserves.
I΄ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
Cheers!
The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign
in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake
stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along."
The Globe and Mail.
No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot
multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.
Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new...
Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing
are getting interesting...
"If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is
based on sheer lies. "
R. D. Laing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they
will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
R. D. Laing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
"Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
"This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about
their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."
We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that
the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C.
pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.
And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.
"It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are
both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump
in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the
most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine
Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."
(Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and
gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across
the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)
Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise
and completely unprovoked .
To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics
of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")
This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed
masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right
under their noses.
and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.
Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.
Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that
alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.
Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian
front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position
on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.
As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt
to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties
to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars,
including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies
with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked
on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a
high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."
So it's true because the CIA said so.
That's the gold standard for me.
So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.
Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.
I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
Happy Christmas, Vlad.
Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political
parties with one fell swoop that way.
The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling
in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result
is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
Where's the gap in this logic:
A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time --
unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that
if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really
this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a
right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling
someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank
you Democratic party.
I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would
we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?
I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the
US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored
some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with
respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of
its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.
If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including
CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.
If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd
say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.
First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that
there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence"
officials. In other words, fake news at this point.
Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen.
Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.
This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the
time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts
about our ruling class.
This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That
fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some
so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.
>> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the
election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.
What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary
so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided
press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the
BS and voted for trump. Good for them.
And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking
story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who
hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.
Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote,
then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking
simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely
disinformation used by US agencies.
Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently
on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College
vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."
When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint
statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.
This is very telling:
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona
are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."
Alleged:
adjective [attributive]
said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality
Consistent:
adjective
acting or done in the same way over time
Method:
noun
a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something
Motivation:
noun
a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way
So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?
Well what we can tell is:
the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations
(and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.
There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.
Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone
strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to
do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed
into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies
working against humanity for very many years.
This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.
The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping
away from them.
This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.
What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame
the Russians for it.
The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.
American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes
is one small incident from either side.
And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall
St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.
They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.
This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually
make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in
2020.
I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood
and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win
have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!
I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.
Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather
a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove
the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.
Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy
is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved
into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by
former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential
candidates, Enrique Peρa Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peρa won that election and is now Mexico's president.
The NSA identified Peρa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones
from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle
in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.
The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.
Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon.
The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."
At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in
the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well
as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large
listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."
Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite
the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups
etc. etc. etc
Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their
billions of funding.
So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA
are going to publish then think again.
During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy
alliance after the election
Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a
muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation
that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to
stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution
caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson
..
"We are Not calling into question the election results"
next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF
What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep.
who almost managed to have his tie done up..
I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)
Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during
and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!
His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --
People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are
in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.
Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed
up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..
blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..
Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just
over month ago.. whoosh!
It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!
And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..
Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
********
Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.
As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!
Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama
continues to resist, or loose face completely..
Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no
legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect
of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!
Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
& Obama is guilty!
The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them
gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or
otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access
etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration,
they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom
Cobbly.
In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the
perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.
The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in
terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as
the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still,
in truth, all is never fair in love or war
.....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated
policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's
position in those upcoming policy battles.
At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward
imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels,
and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence
or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it. http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected
/
Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:
Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.
This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian
"Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.
Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying
people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not
being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong
here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.
Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal
data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.
Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.
IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide
the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about
knowing vulnerabilities.
That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such
an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.
The standard sequence of events is thus:
Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.
If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot
on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP
or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.
The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because
the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.
The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated
privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't
matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints
will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document
what got damaged.
The correct IT manager response is thus:
Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without
exposing the innards of the system.
Lock down misconfigured network systems.
Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions
are controlled via capabilities.
Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential
service.
If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line
of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password
control system to ban bad passwords.
It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled
attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow
such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.
If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections,
perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have
won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign
power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably
more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US
soldiers could never be caught doing!!!
They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US
armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the
the cat out of the bag!!!
Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As
the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if
China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM
EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW:
POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's
reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit
from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo
> Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC
POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent
of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ...
Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is
NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether
Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check
out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons."
http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE
Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which
makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..
Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!
She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.
Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this
time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet
security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have
hacked their security regularly.
In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public
specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity
in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."
Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise.
Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess
not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I
had leading or potentially leading my country.
Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting
flesh.
Don't believe any of this at all.
American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they
really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal
or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results
based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down
in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well
done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
"CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election report "
You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to
influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say
that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.
So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment,
including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled
the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of
her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost.
But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling
the playing field a bit
The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources'
are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats
guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer
appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be
detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S.
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted
to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias
regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement
is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that
folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...
Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants
this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political
shenanigans.
Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years
ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.
This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.
Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.
Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried
to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.
if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is
a real mess in this case.
Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA
yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?
Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical,
vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too?
Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.
Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes...
and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as
usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that
they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered
past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections,
but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have
beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep
the demonstrators off the streets.
If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's
even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal
hygiene.
The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.
Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral
systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).
The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the
election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.
Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western
nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.
Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go
to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced
that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.
I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.
It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama
achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.
The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables,
the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.
It was Hillary Clinton.
Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting,
behave like an adult.
As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for
you.
What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande,
Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha!
- you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old
kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.
I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your
side of politics.
It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist,
bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting
down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean
to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities.
Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.
You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the
other side to your one-sided argument.
Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted
down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.
There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged
by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians
taking over our institutions.
Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become
the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.
Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we
had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.
Trump won the election! Get over it!
Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer
appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be
detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S.
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond
in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when
you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of
people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis
that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
It's just a sad situation
Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful
secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline,
but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist
in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership
and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.
Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type
of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.
Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial
Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.
If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet,
Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists
and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires
get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
Viva China , is far from Latin America
So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions
in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is
no industry.
No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed
foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited
this man child is to public office.
Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words
reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the
equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking
gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations.
Are they wrong too?
I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia
conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists,
particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens
of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing
crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences
of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated
that did not result from Russian hacks
Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed
to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has
been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after
all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame
yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar
and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The
U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i
did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public
who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for
profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the
"public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply
choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry
against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment
roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough
buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another
time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.
Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that
alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.
Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian
front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position
on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.
As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt
to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties
to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars,
including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies
with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked
on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a
high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."
Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as
fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia
must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama
(7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders.
We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors,
we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes?
But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going
their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
The British and French circa 200 years.
The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting
This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.
This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men
security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart,
Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats
are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK.
Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.
I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western
outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!
If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people
a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback
seems fully justified.
Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.
How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the
Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's
no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese
Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none
whatsoever).
I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked.
You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the
mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons
one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition
disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.
BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under
the new POtuS.
I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonϊnt of weapons of mass destruction!
Oh wait, that was already used.
Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy
of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve
to come up with the term 'fake news'.
Hypocrisy at its finest
Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops,
warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United
States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the
integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence
to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect
on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question
the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
I do Holiday cards too.
Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer
network, including the voter registration database.
In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary
of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack
Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....
Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:
The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive
at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of
the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet
Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and
will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.
..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government
cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would
be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook
cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity,
not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite
undisturbed. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news
/
Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third
Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe
population!Lol
I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party
about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.
The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.
One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.
It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.
"Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party
about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."
The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.
Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists
in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.
I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other
countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!
Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!
Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating
that the order came from the Kremlin.
It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering
'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism
in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy
the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand,
I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully
interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best
armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very
powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore
100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential
wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit
of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.
Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy
data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.
None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian,
et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating
enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.
I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating,
resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom.
Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of
misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them
have anything to do with Russia.
I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to
bed, it should be done.
So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?
If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just
better at this? I doubt it.
I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually,
I could'nt care less.
Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election
US interference:
COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in
l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
142 more rows
the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
they practically destroyed the country
The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.
This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been
over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they
have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.
The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically
pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.
I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all
this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved
on and nobody cared.
Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people
they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors"
so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here
at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting
so increasingly shrill.
If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them
another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat
this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing
what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his
last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am
making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect
clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption.
after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send
the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the
intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
"Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international
community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear
to President Putin that this is unacceptable."
Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that
is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts
doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't
come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations
of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.
So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some
SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:
9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News
on Tuesday.
Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest
cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,
On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered
a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.
5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers
accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.
June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department
of Defense's network last June.
1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter
accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)
5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data
And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room
is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of
finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted
that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration -
they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did
it" was a convenient distraction.
All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet,
but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by
the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES
it is our duty.
Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference
And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles
pumped out on today's rag alone.
The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for
war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election"
they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another
illegal war for profit.
There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?
And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing,
" A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."
Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively
makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity
of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow
Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on
the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.
However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for
them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.
Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral
process,
as reported in the NYT :
The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials
that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election
Day."
The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was
borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."
Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing
for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack
against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.
What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream
media against the Russians.
Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians
winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.
I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing
her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the
population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing
compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain
its Empire.
The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.
America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine
and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict
with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market,
money printing by another means.
I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on
Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed
doors while we are clear to do so publically.
The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no
one felt it a big deal at the time.
Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well,
use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as
though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"
The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.
..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological
know-how and research."
Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are
right because it's not what's going on.
It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.
But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it
instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered.
How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle
east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective
needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor
of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously
rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't
be in the realm of possibility.
I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S.
intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more
than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have,
as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is
quite possibly "fake news".
Russia did this, Russia did that
its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
you have cried wolf to many times
stop trying to manipulate us
When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western
failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House
suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied
" Wiki
Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime
" US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.
Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!
Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference
Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!
Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it.
Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?
If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary
would have lost by a landslide.
1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
etc
Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!
"..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States
of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter
anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.
Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating
if the other team does it.
Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the
worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!
"... Joe McCarthy rose to corrosive prominence at the midpoint of the 20th century by riding hysteria and spurring it on. The demagoguery was fueled not only by opportunistic politicians but also by media outlets all too eager to damage the First Amendment and other civil liberties in the name of Americanism and anti-communism. ..."
"... Most Democratic leaders, for their part, seem determined to implicitly - or even explicitly - scapegoat the Russian government for the presidential election results. Rather than clearly assess the impacts of Hillary Clinton 's coziness with Wall Street, or even the role of the FBI director just before the election, the Democratic line seems bent on playing an anti-Russia card. ..."
This country went through protracted witch hunts during the McCarthy era. A lot of citizens -
including many government workers - had their lives damaged or even destroyed. The chill on the First
Amendment became frosty, then icy. Democracy was on the ropes.
Joe McCarthy rose to corrosive prominence at the midpoint of the 20th century by riding hysteria
and spurring it on. The demagoguery was fueled not only by opportunistic politicians but also by
media outlets all too eager to damage the First Amendment and other civil liberties in the name of
Americanism and anti-communism.
Today, congressional leaders of both parties seem glad to pretend that Section 501 of the Intelligence
Authorization Act is just fine, rather than an odious and dangerous threat to precious constitutional
freedoms. On automatic pilot, many senators will vote aye without a second thought.
Yet by rights, with growing grassroots
opposition , this terrible provision should be blocked by legislators in both parties, whether
calling themselves progressives, liberals, libertarians, Tea Partyers or whatever, who don't want
to chip away at cornerstones of the Bill of Rights.
Most Democratic leaders, for their part, seem determined to implicitly - or even explicitly
- scapegoat the Russian government for the presidential election results. Rather than clearly assess
the impacts of Hillary Clinton
's coziness with Wall Street, or even the role of the FBI director just before the election,
the Democratic line seems bent on playing an anti-Russia card.
Perhaps in the mistaken belief that they can gain some kind of competitive advantage over the
GOP by charging Russian intervention for
Donald Trump 's victory, the
Democrats are playing with fire. The likely burn victims are the First Amendment and other precious
freedoms.
From Wikipedia article
Communist propaganda.
"....the term "propaganda" broadly refers to any publication or campaign aimed at promoting a cause
and is/was used for official purposes by most communist-oriented governments. Rooted in Marxist thought,
the propaganda of communism is viewed by its proponents as the vehicle for spreading the enlightenment
of working class people and pulling them away from the propaganda of their oppressors that reinforces
their exploitation, such as religion or consumerism. A Bolshevik theoretician, Nikolai Bukharin, in
his The ABC of Communism wrote:[1] The State propaganda of communism becomes in the long run a means
for the eradication of the last traces of bourgeois propaganda dating from the old rιgime; and it is
a powerful instrument for the creation of a new ideology, of new modes of thought, of a new outlook
on the world.
Similarly neoliberal propaganda is the vehicle of spreading neoliberal ideas and "neoliberal rationality"
inside the country and all over the world the reinforces key postulated of neoliberalism -- unlimited
"free market" for transnational corporations, deregulation, suppression of wages via "free movement
of labor" and outsourcing and offshoring, decimation of labor unions and organized labor in general
(atomization of working force"), "greed is good" memo, etc.
Like Communist propaganda during Brezhnev rule, neoliberal propaganda after 2008 is in crisis, and
it is natural to expect that neoliberal propagandists will resort to heavy handed tactic of McCarthyism
in a vain attempt to restore its influence.
Wall Street On Parade closely examined the report issued by PropOrNot, its related Twitter page,
and its registration as a business in New Mexico, looking for "tells" as to the individual(s) behind
it. We learned quite a number of interesting facts.
As part of its McCarthyite tactics, PropOrNot
has developed a plugin to help readers censor material from the websites it has blacklisted. It calls
that its YYYCampaignYYY. In that effort,
it lists an official address of 530-B Harkle Road, Suite 100, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. That's
one of those agent addresses that serve as a virtual address for the creation of limited liability
corporations that want to keep their actual principals secret. The address has dozens of businesses
associated with it. There should also be a corresponding business listed in the online archives of
the business registry at the Secretary of State of New Mexico. However, no business with the words
Propaganda or PropOrNot or YYY exist in
the
New Mexico business registry, suggesting PropOrNot is using a double cloaking device to shield
its identity by registering under a completely different name.
PropOrNot's Twitter page provides a "tell" that its report may simply be a hodgepodge compilation
of other people's research that was used to arrive at its dangerous assertion that critical thinkers
across America are a clandestine network of Russian propaganda experts. Its
Tweet on
November 7 indicates that the research of Peter Pomerantsev, a Senior Fellow at the Legatum Institute
in London, who has also been cooperating
on research with the Information Warfare Project of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)
in Washington, D.C, inspired its efforts.
According to SourceWatch, the Legatum Institute "is a right-wing think tank promoting 'free markets,
free minds, and free peoples.' " SourceWatch adds that the Legatum Institute "is a project founded
and funded by the Legatum Group, a private investment group based in Dubai." According to the Internet
Archive known as the Wayback Machine, the Center for European Policy Analysis
previously
indicated it was an affiliate of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). We can see why
they might want to remove that affiliation now that the Koch brothers have been exposed as funders
of a very real network of interrelated websites and nonprofits.
According to
Desmog, NCPA has received millions of dollars in funding from right wing billionaires like the
Koch brothers and their related trusts along with the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the
Sarah Scaife Foundation
(heir to the Mellon fortune) along with corporations like ExxonMobil.
CEPA's InfoWar Project is currently listed as a "Related Project" at PropOrNot's website. Indeed,
there are numerous references within the report issued by PropOrNot that sound a familiar refrain
to Pomerantsev and/or CEPA. Both think the U.S. Congress is in denial on the rising dangers of Russian
propaganda and want it to take more direct counter measures. Pages 31 and 32 of the PropOrNot report
urge the American people to demand answers from the U.S. government about how much it knows about
Russian propaganda. The report provides a detailed list of specific questions that should be asked.
In the August 2016 report
released by CEPA (the same month the PropOrNot Twitter account was established) Pomerantsev and his
co-author, Edward Lucas, recommend the establishment of "An international commission under the auspices
of the Council of Europe on the lines of the Venice Commission" to "act as a broadcasting badge of
quality. If an official body cannot be created, then an NGO could play a similar advisory role."
On its website, PropOrNot recommends
a much stronger censorship of independent media websites, writing:
"We call on the American public to Obtain news from actual reporters,
who report to an editor and are professionally accountable for mistakes. We suggest NPR, the BBC,
the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Buzzfeed News, VICE, etc, and especially
your local papers and local TV news channels. Support them by subscribing, if you can!"
CounterPunch
was quick to point out that the Washington Post's former publisher, Philip Graham, supervised
a disinformation network for the CIA during the Cold War, known as Mockingbird. Graham was reported
to have died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at his farm in 1963.
CEPA's website
indicates that on May 10 it hosted Senators Chris Murphy and Rob Portman to discuss "Russia's
sophisticated disinformation campaign." CEPA's President, A. Wess Mitchell is quoted as saying: "What's
missing is a significant effort on the part of the U.S. government. Not nearly enough has been done."
Six days after Washington Post reporter Craig Timberg ran his first PropOrNot story, he
published another article indicating that "Congressional negotiators on Wednesday approved an
initiative to track and combat foreign propaganda amid growing concerns that Russian efforts to spread
'fake news' and disinformation threaten U.S. national security." Quoted in the story was none other
than the very Senator who had met with CEPA in May on that very topic, Senator Rob Portman.
Portman is quoted as follows: "This propaganda and disinformation threat is real, it's growing,
and right now the U.S. government is asleep at the wheel." Among Portman's
top three donors to his 2016 Senate race were Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, two Wall Street behemoths
that would very much like to pivot the national debate to anything other than Wall Street power and
corruption.
"... Sorry, Brian, but you and your ilk sold your credibility for a full investment position in Hillary and Globalism. Your only recourse now is to attack and try to delegitamize those who call you out. ..."
Now this is rich. Brian Williams, the disgraced ex-NBC journalist who was literally fired for
falsely reporting that he was in a helicopter during the Iraq war that took on combatant fire, is
now going on a crusade against "fake news." On his MSNBC show last night, Williams decided to attack
retired General Flynn and Donald Trump for spreading "fake news" via their twitter accounts.
... ... ...
nuubee Dec 9, 2016 11:42 AM
I'm going to start reading The Onion and taking it seriously now.
nope-1004 -> Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 11:48 AM
At least he wasn't in real harms way, like Hillary, when she landed under sniper fire.
It's like [neo]Liberals are genetically compelled or something to accuse others of what they
themselves are actually doing. I've never seen anything this universally true for an entire group
of people suffering the same mental illness ([neo]liberalism).
- "A terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter
we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG." - NBC Nightly News, January
30, 2015
- "It was no more than 120 seconds later that the helicopter in front of us was hit." -
Brian Williams to Tim Russert on CNBC,
March 2005
- "I was instead following the aircraft" [that was struck by the RPG]. - NBC Nightly News,
Wednesday February 5, 2015
- Williams' original [March 26, 2003, NBC News] report indicated that a helicopter in front
of his was hit. -
PolitiFact
- NBC publishes a book [in 2003], "Operation Iraqi Freedom," in which they describe Williams'
experience, implying that his helicopter sustained fire. -
PolitiFact
- May 2008: Williams writes another [NBC News] blog, responding to a note from a soldier
who he met in Iraq. In this post, Williams indicates that he was in a helicopter that took
fire. -
PolitiFact
- "I've done some ridiculously stupid things under that banner, like being in a helicopter
I had no business being in Iraq with rounds coming into the airframe," he said [to Alec Baldwin
in March 2014] -
PolitiFact
- "We were in some helicopters. What we didn't know was, we were north of the invasion.
We were the northernmost Americans in Iraq. We were going to drop some bridge portions across
the Euphrates so the Third Infantry could cross on them. Two of the four helicopters were hit,
by ground fire, including the one I was in, RPG and AK-47. - Williams to Letterman on March
26, 2013 -
PolitiFact.
- In the initial NBC broadcast where he described his 2003 Iraq reporting mission, embattled
NBC anchor Brian Williams falsely claimed that "we saw the guy . . . [who] put a round through
the back of a chopper," which he further and incorrectly claimed was "the Chinook [helicopter]
in front of us." -
Breitbart
- "We flew over a bridge. He waved to the lead pilot very kindly. With that someone else
removed the tarp, stood up, and put a round through the back of a chopper missing the rear
rotor by four or five feet." - To Tom Brokaw on March 26, 2003 -
Breitbart
- "[Y]ou go back to Iraq, and I looked down the tube of an RPG that had been fired at us
and it hit the chopper in front of ours." - Williams to Fairfield University in 2007 -
Ace of Spades
SEAL Team 6 Tale
- "We have some idea which of our special operations teams carried this out," Williams said
on "The Late Show With David Letterman" the day after the raid [May 2, 2011]. "It happens to
be a team I flew into Baghdad with, on the condition that I would never speak of what I saw
on the aircraft, what aircraft we were on, what we were carrying, or who we were after." -
Huffington Post
- "Now, people might be hearing about SEAL Team 6," Williams said the next night, May 3,
2011, on "Nightly News." "I happen to have the great honor of flying into Baghdad with them
at the start of the war." -
Huffington Post
- "I flew into Baghdad, invasion plus three days, on a blackout mission at night with elements
of SEAL Team 6, and I was told not to make any eye contact with them or initiate any conversation,"
Williams said. (Three days after the U.S. invasion would have been March 22, 2003, not April
9, 2003, which was the day Williams broadcasted from the Baghdad airport.) - To David Letterman
in May of 2012 -
Huffinton Post
- In the 2012 "Late Show" appearance, Williams also recalled carrying a box of Wheat Thins,
which he said a hungry special operator dug into with a "hand the size of a canned ham." They
got to talking, and Williams told the commando how much he admired his knife. "Darned if that
knife didn't show up at my office a couple weeks later," Williams told Letterman. -
Huffington Post
- "About six weeks after the Bin Laden raid, I got a white envelope and in it was a thank-you
note, unsigned," Williams said on "Letterman" in January 2013. "And in it was a piece of the
fuselage of the blown-up Black Hawk in that courtyard. Sent to me by one of my friends." -
Huffington Post
- In February 2014, Williams elaborated on the helicopter gift in another media appearance,
this time on the sports talk show hosted by Dan Patrick. "It's one of the toughest things to
get," he said, "and the president has a piece of it as well It's made of a material most people
haven't seen or held in their hands." -
Huffington Post
Fall of the Berlin Wall
- "I've been so fortunate," he said during a 2008 forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential
Library. "I was at the Brandenburg Gate the night the wall came down." -
CNN
- "Here's a fact: 25 years ago tonight, Tom Brokaw and I were at the Berlin Wall," Williams
said at a gala held on November 8, 2014. -
CNN
The Pope
- "I was there during the visit of the pope," Williams said [in 2002]. -
CNN
- While delivering the commencement address at Catholic University that year [2004], Williams
said the "highlight" of his time at the school "was in this very doorway, shaking hands with
the Holy Father during his visit to this campus." -
CNN
Katyusha Rocket Fire
- "There were Katyusha rockets passing just beneath the helicopter I was riding in," he
told a student interviewer from Fairfield (Conn.) University that year [2007]. -
Washington Post
- "When you look out of your hotel window in the French Quarter and watch a man float by
face down, when you see bodies that you last saw in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and swore to yourself
that you would never see in your country," Williams told Eisner [in 2006], who suggested in
the interview that Williams emerged from former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw's shadow with his
Katrina coverage. -
USA Today
- In Williams's telling, the pathos of the scene extended to his crew's access to food.
"We were desperate for food and drink. But not like the people we were seeing in the streets,"
he said in the documentary "In His Own Words: Brian Williams on Hurricane Katrina." -
Washington Post
Puppy Rescue
- "I remember one such house fire - the structure was fully involved with flames and smoke.
I was wearing a breathing apparatus, conducting a search on my hands and knees, when I felt
something warm, squishy and furry on the floor of a closet. I instinctively tucked it in my
coat." -
October 2011, USA Today
- "All I ever did as a volunteer fireman was once save two puppies." -
January 2007, Esquire
Christmas Tree Robbery
In a 2005 interview with Esquire magazine, Williams said a thief drew on him in the 1970s
- leaving him "looking up at a thug's snub-nosed .38 while selling Christmas trees out of the
back of a truck."
NY Post
Quitting College
- "One day, I'm at the copy machine in the White House and Walter Mondale comes up behind
me and clears his throat. A classic throat-clearing. I thought people only did that in movies,
but it turns out vice-presidents do it, too. Anyway, it makes for an exceptionally good morning,
and I run from the White House to the GW campus for class. I'm still wearing my West Wing hard
pass on a chain, and when my professor sees it, he admits that he's only been to the White
House on the public tour. And I thought to myself, This is costing me money that I don't have,
and I'm a young man in too much of a hurry. So I left school." - Brian Williams to
Esquire , 2005
- But then a friend invited him to drive to Washington, D.C., for a weekend, and everything
changed. Smitten with the city and its youthful energy, Williams decided to move there. He
transferred what credits he could from Brookdale to Catholic University and took a job in the
public relations department to help pay his expenses. He landed an internship at the White
House, and when that ended, he answered an ad for a clerking job at a broadcasting association.
- 2009,
New Jersey-Star Ledger
It's just amazing what a shameless loser this guy has always been. I was surprised that they even
fired him for contriving this story, that is after all, what they do. The whole idea behind embedding
journalists was to make them part of the team, which prevents subjective journalism (not that
there was a risk of that happening with him) and turning the war into a fictionalized patriotic
orgy of bullshit reality TV. This was a huge shame to the profession of journalism before you
factor in the lies and perpetual fabrication.
The only reason he was fired was due to the fact that we were in the throws of a giant national
masturbation frenzy over military aggression and the military and it's endeavors became untouchable
overnight. When they got pissed off during that time frame it definitely mattered, not so much
now. Now they are just screwing them and everybody else. These news anchors are absolutely disgusting,
just about every one of them. They all look like pumpkins and hookers. They need to lay off the
hairspray and man-makeup before throwing themselves into 170 degree acidic geyser (you don't want
it too hot).
These ratfuck pressitutes haven't noticed Clinton lost the election because we stopped buying
the MSM lies nothing there that's worthwhile to read based on his stupidity here.
Brian Willians has been discredited and should either retire or find another job. But also, and
I'm serious about this, Pizzagate is a ridiculous made-up bullshit story that is distracting everyone
from the real issues and the way that the Dems have fucked our whole civilization for real, not
just a few kids that likely never even happened.
Even if pizzagate is real it is far less important than the many real ways in which the elites
have fucked us all.
Brian Williams is a member of the Rockefeller/CFR along with Mika Brzezinski and Charles "Joe"
Scarborough. See member lists at cfr dot org.
"The fact that we will not reestablish [another] Walter Cronkite, because of technology...
does not mean we can't have people who are trusted. Brian Williams is sitting here , Charlie Gibson
and Katie Couric..."
With over a century of government schooling to dumb down the population, I'd say their lack of
tact is fairly well warranted, given the average length of attention span can likely be measured
in hours.
All we can do is tell the unawake to turn off the idiot box, stop ingesting Kellogg's etc etc.
Every day we win a few more battles, and one day come to realize the enemy are all lying on the
ground, motionless.
Obama orders review of cyber attacks on 2016 election adviser
President Barack Obama directed US intelligence agencies to conduct a full review of cyber
attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves
office, homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said on Friday. Monaco told reporters the results
of the report would be shared with lawmakers and others. Obama leaves office on January 20. (Reuters)
remember, this has nothing to do with fake news. This has everything to do with competition. THe
MSM is getting too much competition from independent bloggers and opinions that don't follow their
narrative. Their goal now......figure out some way to shut them down.
And that's the entirety of the issue: if McCain had won in 2008, we'd have been hearing about
fake news then. It really is just that we had the audacity to disagree with the legacy media--who
for the first time in my memory broke every rule they had for themselves in appearing to cover
all sides--to try to corral the US public into voting for their candidate of choice. Even Fox
News was anti-Trump, for fuck's sake: did they not realize that gave away the game?!
Ironically, I feel if the media hadn't been so in-the-bag for Clinton from the start, I wouldn't
be surprised if she had won. The media lost her A LOT of votes by making it look like, whether
true or not, they had been bought off. (Yeah, I know they were. But they aren't supposed to APPEAR
it; Clinton should ask for a refund, in my opinion.)
So yeah; look forward to media licensing being floated, and somehow requiring credentials for
journalists (which will end with needing to be 'certified,' which will inevitably require an expensive
several year trip to your university daycare of choice.)
Will it work? Actually, for once, I have hope: I don't think it will. In fact, I suspect fairly
soon, someone is going to notice that Thomas Payne was probably the first purveyor of "fake news"
in this country, and that's a fucked up thing to be against as an American.
BS. If McCain won in 2008 we'd already be in an actual fucking hot war with Russia. 2008 was a
wet-dream for Soros and his boys. They got to win big or win FUCKING BIG.
The FBI found State Dept emails showing that Hillary Clinton went to "Orgy Island" at least
6 times - and at least once in the company of convicted pedo Jeffrey Epstein. (Bill Clinton went
there "at least 20 times" - those pesky progressives!)
You are the epitome of and exactly exactly the type of vile, disgusting, reprehensible Scum
at the bottom of the Swap. A bottom feeder at best.
The Presstitute Centrailized Media has been exposed for the farce that it is. The obvious denial
of it simply exposes the Sociopathic / Psychopathic Nature of you vile Scum Fucks.
Accept it. The Public has lost all respect for the Centrailzed Industrial Complex Presstitiute
Media.
The Libtards are desperate to attack Russia and start WW III, bailout Wall Street again and keep
the Swamp parasites in power in DC to keep the gravy train flowing.
MSM and Dem lies get Yuuuger every day...it's almost laughable but they are actually very dangerous
people and thus, we need to protect the 2nd to protect us from them if they get to desperate.
There has never been an actual media in America to begin with --- just go back and check out
the trash that the Pulitzer fellow wrote, and then realize why that prize is awarded to the riff-raff
who usually receive it.
Sorry, Brian, but you and your ilk sold your credibility for a full investment position
in Hillary and Globalism. Your only recourse now is to attack and try to delegitamize those who
call you out.
The gig is up for these MSM pantywaists and they know it. The only way they maintain viewership
is if the gov't shuts down the internet, which it may. These little fucktards like williams are
some of the biggest purveyors of bullshit in the history of mankind and they know we are on to
their game. No one is going back to believing anything these assholes say except for the most
partisan, retarded, misinformed of the US population.
the news organizations are all propped up to keep the global culture industry operational. If
they were to be displaced by conscious consumers of worth while real news, like the kind that's
now starting to make it's way through the alternative media, they would only exist for viewers
who were being groomed for social unrest. Oh wait, that's what their doing now isn't it?
This is the opportunity to wake people up that you care about. If nothing else you can show that
the news is all coordinated. There is no possibility that in a free competitive market every org
would repeat the same message from the same perspective.
I have taken advantage of the oligarchs sloppiness. People who thought I was crazy two years
ago are now acknowledging I was right. I have delivered news to people and two weeks later it
was a breaking story. Take the opportunity and bring a few more people over.
The only truly fake news is the US MSM. This bullshit that is called "news" is filled with omissions,
distortions, half truths, bald faced lies and fabrications. This is the "official narrative" the
Kool Aid that we are all supposed to drink. Remember how the MSM colluded with the Bush Administration's
neocons to sell the bullshit Iraq WMD story that was presented to the UN by Colin Powell? Total
bullshit. How can anyone believe anything that is fed to us from the MSM.
Ironic but the guy I'm going to tell you about was featured on 60 minutes. You know what I
love is when the US State Department or the MSM quotes the UK Britain-based Syrian Observatory
for Human Rights. This is a little old man in a dingy apartment in a slum Arab neighborhood in
London. This old fucking guy claims to know whats going on in Syria. Actually this is a neocon
propaganda mill for the CIA It's comments, suggestions and conclusions are solely based upon
an official narrative created by the CIA and sold to us through the MSM.
Look at the pre-election coverage and non-stop polling data talked about by all the MSM boneheads
including this Brian Williams jack off. Donald Trump was continously slammed, over and over again
by *all of them.*The exception was Sean Hannity. Now look at the partial list of donors to crooked
Hillary's campaign.
The list of donors to the Clinton campaign included many of the most powerful media institutions
in the country - among the donors: Comcast (which owns NBC, and its cable sister channels, such
as MSNBC); James Murdoch of News Corporation (owner of Fox News and its sister stations, among
many other media holdings); Time Warner (CNN, HBO, scores of other channels); Bloomberg; Reuters;
Viacom; Howard Stringer (of CBS News); AOL (owner of Huffington Post); Google; Twitter; The Washington
Post Company; George Stephanopoulos (host of ABC News' flagship Sunday show); PBS; PRI; the Hearst
Corporation and others (
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37451-the-clinton-foundation-and-the-... ).
Trump is correct when he says the US media is crooked. It's all fucking fake news!!
Post election- I now watch local news for traffic and weather in the morning. But fuck them
I will not listen to the MSM talking heads or anything else on the crooked MSM. To know whats
going on in the world I now watch RT which presents an objective and honest perspective of what's
really going on in the world. Of course they call RT fake news, or Russian propaganda. All I can
say is they can go fuck themselves! I am sick and tired of the lies and bullshit which is the
official US narrative as presented by our 100% crooked MSM!
The real fake news is presented by the liars in our MSM!
Lol makes no difference now ... I left the MSM, never read it anymore.
I am no longer misinformed by them - that's a bonus.
I now prefer news from other nations because domestically it is all the fucking same from the
libtards and progressives of more people murdered because of some shit they created. Still get
drug addicts committing crime just like all them illegal immigrants because with no money you
have to commit a crime to exist. We all know that domestically your bankers are robbing you and
that the politicians are lying pieces of shit.
So why would I want to read what I already know? Nope don't need it.
Bye, bye NBC and the rest of you I can predict what the stories you will run with tomorrow
because they are the same fucking lies like the past 30 years.
Attack the MSM by attacking their ability to sell advertising.
"That newspaper you are advertising in has been wrong on everything, from going into Iraq to
recommending that loser Hillary Clinton to the final election results. If you are advertising
in that dishonest discredited rag, your product or service is being tarnished by association.
"
"Just watch President Elect Trump's Thank You Tour speech. Tens of thousands of people loudly
booed the press and the media that were there. You really want to spend your money buying ads
from those discredited losers?"
The neocons and fascist Democrat factions are joining forces looks like and as desperate as can
be. They've lied since day one, bombed RNC offices, beat innocent people up at Trump rallys, published
non-stop fake news, and now pull the "Russian agent" theory out of their closet.
Most Americans laugh at these nuts but I think they are very scary and serious since they have
alot of money invested in Queeb Hillary and war with Russia.
The Washington Post ( fake news organization) is reporting that the CIA secretly informed the
senate last week that there was Russian interference in our election and that it was Russia's
goal to ensure the election of Donald Trump. Apparently the house was informed in September and
was questioned if this should be made public and the Republicams said no, according to the Washington
Post - the source identified himself as " DNC in deep shit" . /Sarc.
Rachel Maddow was gleefully reporting on this tonight, as if it somehow vindicated her and
her morally bankrupt colleagues from the fact that they should have been reporting on this rather
than the Russians, since it is an American election and it is their job to investigate and report
the news.
Of course Obama has decided to keep this information secret, although, 7 "Democratic " senators
were requesting that the Obama administration released PARTS of the findings of the investigation
which can only lead one to question which PARTS they would prefer to keep from the American public
and why. It also is a concern of national security that national secrets are ending up on the
Washington Post- maybe they received this information from Russia.
Mitch McConell was reported to have been dismissive of the allegations as a result of the lack
of agreement over the evidence among the 17 security agencies involved, the lack of any source
directly linking the Russian government to releasing DNC hacked emails to the Wikileaks
This also begs to question Rachel Maddow on her lack of outrage of the behavior of the DNC in
colluding with the press and rigging the primary. As if to say, since Russia revealed the information
and the wrong doing of the DNC, it is not a question of if the behavior of the DNC was just or
unjust.
Nor does it vindicate any Hillary supporter, it does not legitimize what the DNC, the press,
or Hillary Clinton did.
Leave it to the incompetent Washington Post and MSNBC and Rachel Maddow to completely miss
the ball again.
Is it surprising to anyone that Russia did not wish for world war 3?
We don't have to be too concerned about fake news pumped out by Russia and other evil doers. That
job is being well handled already by NBC, CNN, the New York Times, and others.
In this post-truth world, these openly left-biased media organizations can rival Pravada of
the old Soviet Union in their laughable news reports, lack of integrity, and willingness to suppress
news they don't want known while publishing outright propaganda.
In a democracy where citizens must make informed decisions about governments, politicians and
issues, it seems to me that the people behind these corrupt media outlets are just debasing their
country; I imagine they at least get well paid for their treachery.
Curious how, having destroyed their own credibility and lost so many viewers and readers, these
organizations are now attacking their new, smaller divergent rivals on the internet.
The Liberal Leftist and the MSM created the terms Alt-Right and Fake News to distort real news
and make them fit into their political agenda! They use this to discredit Conservatives in an
effort to shut down Alternative and Conservatist News Media, especially on the Internet and Talk
Radio to end competition! They want Free Speech for the Left and Censorship for the Right! The
truth is that people discovered their plot and it backfired!!!
Mainstream media lost all credibility with We the People!!!
"... All of the "The Russians are Coming" nonsense is coming from Democrat party organs and mouthpieces. Not Trump and his media allies. ..."
"... An excellent article from Mark. This Alexandra Chalupa sounds like a real piece of work. These Cold Warriors seem to have red-colored glasses and see commies everywhere they look. ..."
"... Of course, there was that old experiment ( Kohler et al ) where they had people wearing different colored goggles for some time, then asked participants to take them off. And what happened? The participants continued to see in those hues. ..."
"... Wait a second, so there was ..."
"... CIA has been whipping ethnic Ukies into a patriotic frenzy for decades with social clubs that seep revanchist propaganda. ..."
"... HR 6393: "(Sec. 501) This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments (with the role of the Russian Federation hidden or not acknowledged publicly) through front groups, covert broadcasting, media manipulation, disinformation or forgeries, funding agents of influence, incitement, offensive counterintelligence, assassinations, or terrorist acts. The committee shall expose falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies." ..."
"... Plus, that will add $160 million, IIRC, to The Deficit. ..."
"... Two things this article curiously doesn't seem to mention. The first is Victoria Nuland, who must be a close Hillary confidante, and architect of the coup in Ukraine ..."
"... So your food for thought is that the Russian state behaves rationally in the face of an aggressive military power? Of course, they are hacking everything. If they weren't before the NSA revelations (where the U.S. vacuums up everything and then has no safeguards on what they grab; Congress has had testimony about NSA employees using their power to stalk people), they were afterwards. ..."
"... Here's some food for thought. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton all tried to make a country of 145 million or so people with numerous internal problems a major campaign platform. Not one of them is President. Could there be a connection? ..."
"... As one of the people who consistently calls bull hockey about the claims that the wikileaks releases of the DNC and Podesta emails are the results of Russian government hackers, I will hereby agree with the idea that Russia is hacking everything they can get their hands on. Mind you I believe that every major government from the US to China to Germany to India are hacking everything they can get their hands on. And that every government knows that about all the rest. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't believe that is beyond naive. ..."
"... But thinking that every major government had access to Clinton's emails, Boeing's files, and knows what internet videos Obama/May/Merkel/Putin/Castro have accessed more than once is not the same thing as thinking they are stupid enough or have decent strategic reasons to make that public knowledge by releasing damaging but not destroying emails concerning the massive stupidity and arrogance of one candidate for President and her core people. ..."
"... There is only one reason that the meme about Fake News is being pushed now the people who have been pushing fake news for awhile to promote their agendas have lost the control they thought they had over the public and now worry about them rebelling. If fake news were important Judith Miller wouldn't have a job or a book deal and the opportunity to promote that book. Hell Murdoch wouldn't have a media empire. ..."
"... I don't know why so many so-called movers and shakers want war with Russia, but it is clear that anyone getting in the way of that goal is now in the cross hairs. ProporNOT may be more about Ukrainian support, but the people who promoted them are about the reasons it was being used in the first place. ..."
"... Eastern European fascists running propaganda web sites for the Whappo, indeed. ..."
"... If you read Matt Stoller's excellent piece from The Atlantic ..."
"... I don't see "Banana Republican" Trump as a fascist - he is in many ways an exemplar of Caudillismo , a charismatic, populist, but authoritarian oligarch. ..."
"... Nance used fake news about Clinton speeches to propagate the fake news that the Podesta emails were fake. ..."
"... Was amused to see that naturalnews (one of the sites listed in propornot it looks like I guess a right wing alternative medicine type site) is offering a $10k reward for unmasking propornot but I don't think anyone's ever going to be able to collect. ..."
"... Why? Because they take the site seriously on its claim of being composed of 30 members and will only pay out for the identities of at least ten. I think it's just one, maybe two guys. ..."
"... There are dots to connect the WP article, Congressional Section 501 activity, Senators McCain/Graham "leadership"; and most recently, Hillary's comments. Suspect coordination. Connect the dots. And then search for a motive. ..."
"... The national security state is concerned that Trump will seek mutually beneficial agreements with Russia. For evidence of the power of the national "security" state a tour of the Pentagon is not necessary. Tour Tyson Corner, Virginia, instead, for starters. ..."
"... And once Trump has established these agreements there will then be no stopping several Eastern European countries + Germany (of course) realizing where their economic interests really lie. Does anyone really believe that Germany is going to let itself be turned into an irradiated wasteland just to please a bunch of neocon paranoids ? ..."
"... That's what the neocons, the MIC, and all their shills, and enablers truly fear. Paradoxically this ludicrous attempt to revive McCarthyism may well end up actually ending the Cold War for good & all 25 years after it should have ended. ..."
"... From the article: "It's now been a few days, and the shock and disgust is turning to questions about how to fight back-and who we should be fighting against." ..."
"... How many people, world-wide, are involved and invested in the whole "taking over everything" machinery of "state security" and espionage and corporate hegemony? And who is this "we" who should be fighting? ..."
"... This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies. ..."
"... The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA "projects," and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left. ..."
"... U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the "Democratic Left" and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell. The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of "anti-Stalinist" leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural and political values, attack "Stalinist totalitarianism" and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed in the CIA-subsidized journals. What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers of truth, iconoclastic humanists, freespirited intellectuals, or artists for art's sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted "committed" house "hacks" of the Stalinist apparatus. ..."
"... It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers: some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London "intellectuals" feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the International Organizations Branch of the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends (397-404). ..."
"... I have no answers for "what is to be done." ..."
"... It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached. ..."
"... One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent. ..."
"... Dems didn't lose this elections because of "fake news". Dems lost because they did not prosecute the bankers who caused the 2008 financial crash, who fraudulently foreclosed on homes and are still engaged in fraud (see: Wells Fargo). imo. ..."
Great article but I'm unsure about the conclusion. ""This is the world the Washington Post
is bringing back to its front pages. And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon
itself to soften up the American media before Trump moves in for the kill. And it's all being
done in the name of fighting "fake news" and fascism.""
I was much more worried about this happening with Hillary at the helm. She seems more in line
with Soros and the Ukrainian extremists. Trump still seems to be interested in working with Putin
on things of mutual interest although he will probably find resistance in both US parties.
Yup. I'm still thinking "Make Ukraine Great Again" is not on Trump's agenda. But I'm just taking
things day by day. Still digesting Soros found some Nazis he likes. [Facebook "Like" gots it covered.
No new tweaking of social media required.]
However, I think it would be interesting if Trump investigated whether treason against Ukraine
is punishable by firing squad under US Treason Law. Since they've made it kinda personal.
Yeah, the piece is a bit uneven and the last bit a bit revealing of the author's own biases.
All of the "The Russians are Coming" nonsense is coming from Democrat party organs and mouthpieces.
Not Trump and his media allies.
The most effective neo-fascism that we see emerging everywhere is pretty consistently on the
erstwhile voices of the "left" affiliated with the Democrat Party which is double speak for the
New American Right. Indeed, by going back to the height of the cold war to make connections to
these shady organizations rather than modern day plutocrats (Amazonia and Googlie are low hanging
fruit), the author is employing misdirection. So, I will take this with a few grains of salt.
An excellent article from Mark. This Alexandra Chalupa sounds like a real piece of work.
These Cold Warriors seem to have red-colored glasses and see commies everywhere they look.
Of course, there was that old experiment (
Kohler et al ) where they had people wearing different colored goggles for some time, then
asked participants to take them off. And what happened? The participants continued to see in those
hues.
Wait a second, so there was foreign intervention in this election and there
were nefarious racists and eugenicists involved, but they weren't behind Trump,
but Clinton!?
/heavy sarcasm
Thank you very much for sharing this JLS! What a fasc inating read! The historical
context Ames provides is very intriguing and convincing.
"Convincing" is too strong. I would say rather suggestive, possibly persuasive. There is not
enough evidence to convince. More investigation is needed, and this might be a productive line
of inquiry, but it is too soon to talk about conclusions.
I am a huge fan of your website and donate as regularly as i can. I am appalled at what the
Washington Post did and its implications for free speech in the US going forward.
That said, I find this article defamatory in purpose, rather than informative. I do not believe
it meets the usual standards of Naked Capitalism: it is not fairly reasoned, nor based only on
relevant fact to the issue at hand. In my opinion, it is designed to smear and thus undermines
the considerable, unusual credibility of your website. I find it disturbing that it has been amplified
by its inclusion as a link. It does damage to the cause, rather than further it.
How so? First off, we know very little and Ames acknowledges that, but he uses historical context
to expand on that and build a case behind the PropOrNot / FPRI claims and their potential motives.
He fully admits he is working with that we've got. Maybe all these illustrations do just happen
to line up well and new information will change perception, but Ames discussion hits a lot of
typical looking benchmarks.
How is Mr Ames experience and the very place in which Chalupa works, what she says, as well
as the history of our countries actions upon others around the world and within not reasonable
to consider?
I'm sorry if incorrect but you seem like a troll without explaining yourself in specificity
further.
Disturbed voter, batshit Springtime-for-Hitler Ukies long predate Biden's involvement.
CIA has been whipping ethnic Ukies into a patriotic frenzy for decades with social clubs that
seep revanchist propaganda. The hapless Ukies were meant to be cannon fodder for hot war
on the USSR. When Russia molted and shed the USSR, Ukraine continued its Soviet degeneration but
the associations had a life of their own. That's how CIA clowns wound up proud owners of the Exclusion
Zone.
HR 6393: "(Sec. 501) This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to
counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments
(with the role of the Russian Federation hidden or not acknowledged publicly) through front groups,
covert broadcasting, media manipulation, disinformation or forgeries, funding agents of influence,
incitement, offensive counterintelligence, assassinations, or terrorist acts. The committee shall
expose falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations
carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies."
Two things this article curiously doesn't seem to mention. The first is Victoria Nuland,
who must be a close Hillary confidante, and architect of the coup in Ukraine .
The second thing is not so curious per se, but a common feature of articles about Russian hacking
accusationsthey gloss over the fact that there is good evidence that the Russians are hacking
everything they can get their hands on. To assume otherwise is naive. Much of this evidence is
available in a recently-published book, The Plot to Hack America by Malcolm Nance.
He doesn't identify American news sources of being Russian stooges, but does describe how the
hacks on the DNC have FSB (the new KGB) fingerprints all over them. He also describes Trump's
ties to the Kremlin, as well as his advisors' business interests there. Food for thought.
So your food for thought is that the Russian state behaves rationally in the face of an
aggressive military power? Of course, they are hacking everything. If they weren't before the
NSA revelations (where the U.S. vacuums up everything and then has no safeguards on what they
grab; Congress has had testimony about NSA employees using their power to stalk people), they
were afterwards.
Here's some food for thought. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton all tried to
make a country of 145 million or so people with numerous internal problems a major campaign platform.
Not one of them is President. Could there be a connection?
As one of the people who consistently calls bull hockey about the claims that the wikileaks
releases of the DNC and Podesta emails are the results of Russian government hackers, I will hereby
agree with the idea that Russia is hacking everything they can get their hands on. Mind you I
believe that every major government from the US to China to Germany to India are hacking everything
they can get their hands on. And that every government knows that about all the rest. As far as
I am concerned anyone who doesn't believe that is beyond naive.
But thinking that every major government had access to Clinton's emails, Boeing's files,
and knows what internet videos Obama/May/Merkel/Putin/Castro have accessed more than once is not
the same thing as thinking they are stupid enough or have decent strategic reasons to make that
public knowledge by releasing damaging but not destroying emails concerning the massive stupidity
and arrogance of one candidate for President and her core people.
There is only one reason that the meme about Fake News is being pushed now the people
who have been pushing fake news for awhile to promote their agendas have lost the control they
thought they had over the public and now worry about them rebelling. If fake news were important
Judith Miller wouldn't have a job or a book deal and the opportunity to promote that book. Hell
Murdoch wouldn't have a media empire.
I don't know why so many so-called movers and shakers want war with Russia, but it is clear
that anyone getting in the way of that goal is now in the cross hairs. ProporNOT may be more about
Ukrainian support, but the people who promoted them are about the reasons it was being used in
the first place.
Because big picture. Eurasia is inevitably coming together and it is the end of an era. Why
we thought we could prevent this from happening must be based on pure hubris. Everything has changed
so much in one century that even language makes no sense. Eastern European fascists running
propaganda web sites for the Whappo, indeed.
Hillary Clinton taking up the cause against fake news. Jesus. As Liz Warren said, personnel
is policy. You hire fascist nut cases, you create fascism. Hillary, you're so very patriotic.
If you read Matt Stoller's excellent piece from The Atlantic , "How the Democrats
Killed their Populist Soul" you'll see that Clintonism matches the corporatist model of fascism
as derided by Franklin Roosevelt in the late '30's, before mass-murder became associated with
the brand and when people like Charles Lindbergh were touting it as the "modern" way forward.
If you understand Clintonism as corporatist fascism, the DNC's affinity for Ukraine becomes more
and more logical.
I don't see "Banana Republican" Trump as a fascist - he is in many ways an exemplar of
Caudillismo , a charismatic, populist, but authoritarian oligarch.
I read that. I don't believe Nance said the Podesta emails were fake, just that there was a
possibility that those supplying the documents to Wikileaks could adulterate the documents or
introduce fabricated documents into the pipeline. Quite easy to do when leaking, what was it,
fifty thousand emails? And I still haven't heard a single persuasive argument to disprove that
the Russians hacked the DNC. Quite the contrary. The hacks originated from IP addresses known
to originate in the FSA (Fancy Bear) who have led a prodigious list of pro-Russian exploits against
targets throughout eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, Ukraine, and the German Bundestag.
Real-time adjustments from those IPs also occurred from the Moscow time zone, and some used cyrillic
keyboards.
Don't get me wrong: I disagree with the WaPo piece, and have read, commented, and financially
supported Naked Capitalism for quite a while now. And there's no faker news than that Iraq had
WMDs, a fact that the press has never quite overcome in the eyes of the public. But just because
spooky Intelligence Community people say that Russia hacked the DNC, doesn't make it not so. There
are way too many people on the left going off half-cocked. Have you noticed how since the "fake
news" imbroglio flamed up, MSM criticism of Trump's swampland cabinet picks have been quite muted?
The Intercept post has a
link
to the Nance tweet, which is still out there, saying
Malcolm Nance Retweeted KA Semenova
Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries
& #blackpropaganda not even professionally done.
He, Podesta, and the correspondents in the leaked emails never provided a single example and/or
proof that any email was forged. Also, I don't understand the technicality, but there is some
type of hash value associated with an email such that WL was able provide confirmation of those
emails where the hash value was intact. Instructions on how to replicate that confirmation process
were published at the time.
Was amused to see that naturalnews (one of the sites listed in propornot it looks like
I guess a right wing alternative medicine type site) is offering a $10k reward for unmasking propornot
but I don't think anyone's ever going to be able to collect.
Why? Because they take the site seriously on its claim of being composed of 30 members
and will only pay out for the identities of at least ten. I think it's just one, maybe two guys.
There are dots to connect the WP article, Congressional Section 501 activity, Senators
McCain/Graham "leadership"; and most recently, Hillary's comments. Suspect coordination. Connect
the dots. And then search for a motive.
The national security state is concerned that Trump will seek mutually beneficial agreements
with Russia. For evidence of the power of the national "security" state a tour of the Pentagon
is not necessary. Tour Tyson Corner, Virginia, instead, for starters.
And once Trump has established these agreements there will then be no stopping several
Eastern European countries + Germany (of course) realizing where their economic interests really
lie. Does anyone really believe that Germany is going to let itself be turned into an irradiated
wasteland just to please a bunch of neocon paranoids ?
Goodbye sanctions and then, shortly after, its bye, bye NATO bye bye.
That's what the neocons, the MIC, and all their shills, and enablers truly fear. Paradoxically
this ludicrous attempt to revive McCarthyism may well end up actually ending the Cold War for
good & all 25 years after it should have ended.
From the article: "It's now been a few days, and the shock and disgust is turning to questions
about how to fight back-and who we should be fighting against."
How many people, world-wide, are involved and invested in the whole "taking over everything"
machinery of "state security" and espionage and corporate hegemony? And who is this "we" who should
be fighting?
Fundamentals: The human siege of the planet is (it seems sort of clear) driving the biosphere
toward collapse as a sustainer of most human life. Ever more of the extractable entities of the
planet (mineral and living resources, "money" whatever that is, the day labor of most of us, on
and on) are being used, and used up, in service to what? a relatively few masters of manipulation
who are playing a game that most of the rest of us, were we able to focus and figure it out, would
recognize as murder and attempted murder as part of a war "we" did not enlist (most of us) to
participate in. The manipulators, both the ones sitting on extreme piles of wealth and the power
it provides, and the senior effectives in the various "agencies" that play out the game, what
the heck do they "want?" Other than "MORE"?
What motivates a Coors or Koch or Bezos or Brock or the various political figures and their
handlers and minions and "advisors?" This one little episode shows how completely it appears that
the whole species is screwed: "Who do we fight, and how?" Are "we" is the readers of NC? Some
few of whom are stooges and operatives for the Ministries of Truth who are tracking and recording
what transpires here and no doubt subtly injecting "influencers" into the discourse. Some are
just ordinary people, of varying degrees of insight and ability to influence the collective net
vector of human activity (for good or ill). Some are hoping to just find some awareness of and
comprehension of what-all is shaking on the Big Game Board of Life. In this moment, "we" depend,
in this one tiny instance among the great flood of chaos-induction and interest-seeking, on the
responses and pressures "our" hosts can bring to bear - threatening letters to the propagators
like WaPo and Craig Timberg, just one tumor in the vast cancer that afflicts the species, attempts
to link up with other parts of the too-small "good will, comity and deceny" population that is
fractioned and atomized and constantly seduced or frightened into going along with the larger
trend line, grabbing URLs and stuff I'm not smart enough to understand, all that. But the Big
People, the Deep State that "we" are subtly taught NOT to believe exists by various bits of sophistry,
is a lot better armed and equipped and always active - its operatives are paid, usually pretty
well, to be on the job all the time, operating their various and manifold, multifarious, often
ingenious, always disingenous operations, and always thinking up new ways to screw over and loot
and debase and oppress and enserf the rest of us.
Here's just one explication of how the Deep State operates:
This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced
a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic
organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders,
details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts.
The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored
abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized
journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for,
or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies.
The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom
in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly
on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA "projects," and others drifted in
and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were
publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political
tide to the left.
U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included
Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals
who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen
Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy,
and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested
in and promoted the "Democratic Left" and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender,
Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.
The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding
the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts
of "anti-Stalinist" leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural
and political values, attack "Stalinist totalitarianism" and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism
and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed
in the CIA-subsidized journals.
What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not
only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers
of truth, iconoclastic humanists, freespirited intellectuals, or artists for art's sake, who
counterposed themselves to the corrupted "committed" house "hacks" of the Stalinist apparatus.
It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore
the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the
southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their
cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece,
and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every
imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers:
some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like
Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP
Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling
at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London
"intellectuals" feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who
directed the International Organizations Branch of the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how
they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends (397-404).
http://monthlyreview.org/1999/11/01/the-cia-and-the-cultural-cold-war-revisited/
And that is just one part of the "operations" put in motion by just "our" national rulers by
ONE of the "seventeen national security agencies" that apparently appear in the organization chart
of the US empire.
These mostly faceless people, from "wet workers" to "economic hit men" to analysts and office
workers and Station Chiefs and functionaries at DIA and NIA and NSA and the rest of the acronymists
of "state security," are "just doing their jobs," with more or less personal malevolence (William
Casey, Dick Cheney, the Dulleses, Kermit Roosevelt, on and on), seem to be working from a central
organizing principle: Control of minds and resources, in service to imperial and corporate and
personal dominion. What tools and actions and thought processes do ordinary people have, to fight
back or even resist against this kind of onslaught? "We" are told we are becoming responsible
to do our daily best, in among fulfilling our and our families' basic needs, and to minimize our
environmental impacts to at least slow the destruction, and also somehow to become aware, in a
world of dis- and dysinformation, of what is being done to us and our children and communities,
and "resist." And "fight back." Against who, and against what, and by what means, when you have
the "Googolverment," and all those millions of employees and managers and executives thereof,
on call and on task 24/7 looking for ever more subtle ways to data mine and monetize and manipulate
"us"? And in a feedback loop that has been ongoing since no doubt the earliest of "civilization"
cities and tribes and nations, the "arms race" both in straight military terms and in the sneaky-pete
realm of espionage and state security and "statecraft," "the Russians" and the Pakistanis and
Chinese and Israelites, and probably Brazilians and Zoroastrians, are all growing their own machinery
of consumption and dominance and destruction.
What's the model "we" are supposed to be working from? Some people here are looking for "investment
opportunities" to take advantage of the chaos and destruction, and there are many for those who
can see the patterns and buy in. But what would a "just and decent world" (at least the human
population) even look like, and is there anything in our DNA that moves enough of us toward that
inchoate model to even have a prayer of suppressing those darker and deadlier impulses and motivations
and goals?
I have no answers for "what is to be done." It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption
and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition
of a human population has been reached. One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence
that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent. And try to build
little communities that don't depend on killable cyber connections for their interconnectedness.
And work on an "organizing principle" of their/our own, that has a chance of surviving the crushing
mass of energetic but negative energy that infects the species.
And thanks to our hosts, for doing their bit to face down the fokkers that would take us all
down if they could. It's a constant struggle, and no doubt they are more aware than even a Futilitarian
like myself of all the parasites and malignancies that are so increasingly active and invested
in looting what's left of "antidotes."
Yes you do, the part about little communities and ad-hoc organizing principles is spot-on;
that stuff works, it just grows slowly at first. It is also self-limiting, a valuable feature,
given the manifest evidence of how badly things can go wrong when communities are pushed to grow
beyond their capacities.
It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump"
decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached.
Decency and comity have their little flaws, too; both can obscure incidents of gross folly.
But yeah, population factors are just ferocious.
One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to
even the Deep State activities might become more immanent.
Not to worry. Incompetence is on it! Any second now wait for it wait for it excuse me, my timepiece
seems to have frozen hmm. Well, it appears that "peak incompetence" has already arrived and done
the bulk of its work, we just haven't noticed all of the results yet. We are now in that phase
between the giant's stumble and their final impact on the ground.
All this is normal, predictable, and as it should be (even the unfortunate parts); it's entropy.
It would be wiser to abandon bivalent moralities and just evaluate each circumstance on its merits,
and do our best.
That Ukrainian nationalists are behind propornot seems clear; that they're from the Nazified
wing seems implausible. Would the Bandera crowd be likely to think of putting a USS Liberty veterans'
website on a list of Russian propaganda outlets?
Ukrainian nationalists = Nazified Ukrainians. Israel is also involved so yes it makes a lot
of sense that the USS Liberty veterans' website on "the list". Might be time for Israel (and Genie
energy) to kiss the Golan Heights goodbye.
Yats and Porky are Jewish, so are some oligarchs who sponsor various neo-Nazi military formations.
Ihor Kolomoyskyi, for example, sponsors the Aidar Battalion. The bottom line is, the neo-Nazis
need to please their US government and Ukie oligarch sponsors in order to keep the dough flowing,
so Russians are the new Jews in Ukraine. Geopolitics makes for strange bedfellows.
Wikipedia has Yats being a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Porky belonging to the
Ukrainian Orthodox church. Not vouching for Wikipedia and knowing that history can produce some
interesting heritage, I thought I would point that out. Kolomoyskyi has dual citizenship with
Israel and of course infamous Clinton Foundation donor and Maidan supporter Victor Pinchuk was
raised by Jewish parents before sacking his own country.
The Forward certainly counts Porky as a Jew, and many Jewish organizations have attacked Yats
for concealing his Jewish roots. Given the rampant anti-antisemitism in Ukraine, can't really
blame them for concealing their identity. It was shortly before the Maidan that Mila Kunis went
back to her native Ukraine to promote her flick, and got called very unsavory names by some rabid
anti-Semites in Kiev.
" Dimitri - who asked NBC News not to use his real name - is one of dozens of teenagers in
the Macedonian town of Veles who got rich during the U.S. presidential election producing fake
news for millions on social media. "
heh. Dems didn't lose this elections because of "fake news". Dems lost because they did
not prosecute the bankers who caused the 2008 financial crash, who fraudulently foreclosed on
homes and are still engaged in fraud (see: Wells Fargo). imo.
Well that and passed a regressive health insurance bailout that required people to purchase
expensive and largely useless insurance; and showed their complete and utter contempt for working
Americans by ignoring the real state of the under and unemployment, and continued that contempt
by passing several job killing trade bills and attempting three other mega steroid versions of
same.
There are many reasons why the Democrats lost, but mostly it is because they stopped doing
little more than barely pretending to represent the interests of anyone outside of the wealthy
and corporate 'persons' who fund their campaigns and retirements. Protecting the banks and bankers
being only the clearest example.
I still don't see any of my favorite bloggers going after Bezos. I didn't even see him mentioned
until today. We are looking pretty timid so far in the face of Trump and Bezos (Trump from another
direction). No possibility of winning without fighting the war where it's taking place.
For Hire: Established corporation seeking experienced individuals in need of a challenge. Applicants
should have
*at least 3 Yrs. experience of having their head head firmly up their backsides.
* a certificate from a licensed physician confirming applicants
mental impairment
* an ability to to obfuscate combined with no understanding of the terms 'cognitive dissonance'
'false moral equivalence' and 'logical fallacy'
Applicant must be at least 13 years old and show the capacity to convince 45% of America that
he or she is 30.
Earlier in this thread there was a comment from Claudia Riche claiming the Ames article is,
essentially, a smear job. I feel compelled to respond as I have direct personal knowledge of one
of his two main points, specifically re: the extreme right-wing tenor of the Foreign Policy Research
Institute, or FPRI in Philadelphia.
I worked at FPRI (yes, me the Marxist) in the mid-to-late 1970's, and was in contact with people
there through the early 1980's. I can testify that Ames's description of Strausz-Hupe and his
ideas are entirely accurate. I didn't know much about S-H when I first started working there,
but I figured out his age and original location probably made him a 3-way spook, at the least.
I could cite chapter and verse of the various associates and leading personalities that went through
there (including Alexander Haig) but I don't have the energy today.
Ames mentions that FPRI was driven off the Penn campus well, only in the technical sense.
If you spit out the window you'd hit a university building, and many principals there were professors
at Penn, including Strausz-Hupe. Also, many Penn grad students passed through there, and undergrads
(like me).
For laughs, here is an interesting, if airbrushed, synopsis of the influence of FPRI by my
old friend Alan Luxenberg:
Here it is sorry it didn't post immediately. BTW stuff not posting immediately doesn't necessarily
mean either (1) there is anything wrong with your comment, or (2) it got permanently eaten by
Skynet. Sometimes the algorithm for finding spam gets false positives for reasons that are not
entirely clear.
that was alot of investigative digging jerri-lynn -- so nice To see u surprise me twice in a
week. tremendous effort -thank you a post worth cross posting if it hasn't been already
This is indeed a great post, but I'm not the author. Mark Ames is the author. I just cross-posted
his fine work, which was originally published by AlterNet.
The CIA's apparent involvement reveals the immense danger and probable failure of expecting
a few managers to keep the sty clean.
Its not just in spookery that standards have collapsed. The world of professionals doctors,
lawyers, accountants has followed the same downward trajectory and it started in 1970 with demonetization
and the subsequent expansion of honorable greed.
It was in early 1970s that creative accounting and its penchant for creating wealth out of
nothing appeared.Then we saw these dodgy scorers appearing in court and swearing to the truth
of their new view. That infected the legal profession. The prosecutors were still willing to present
all their evidence for and against conviction to the Judge but the defense increasingly cheated,
led by the lawyer who tells his customers 'we never plead guilty,' and starts the creation of
a case beyond a reasonable doubt in place of the defendant's actual evidence.
It may be that doctors have so far escaped the moral collapse although on a recent visit to
hospital I saw the elevator lobbies infested with the army of capitalism in the shape of suited
drug salesmen trying to create obligations on the part of doctors.
We seem to have lost our way and for the time being its the man who cares only for the bottom
line who is winning the war of the world. He's the man who owns the newspaper that tells you every
bad thing is because of foreigners.
Typically Diaspora is more nationalistic the "mainland" population. This is very true about
Ukrainian Diaspora, which partially is represented by those who fought on the side of Germany in the WWII.
They are adamantly anti-Russian.
Notable quotes:
"... Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine. ..."
"... Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. ..."
"... And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. ..."
"... Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism. ..."
"... And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues. ..."
"... The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion ..."
"... This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting. ..."
"... The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. ..."
"... I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII. ..."
"... "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko " ..."
"... Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops analyzed over and over ..."
"... The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military. ..."
"... The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day. ..."
"... Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight? ..."
"... What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story. ..."
"... Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada). ..."
"... Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko). ..."
"... There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis. ..."
"... So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points ..."
"... I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you. ..."
"... What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up. ..."
"... Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. ..."
"... Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too. ..."
"... What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government. ..."
"... Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/ ..."
"... This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far! ..."
"... Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine. ..."
Hello, I'm the blogger of Russia Without BS, a site you cited once in the stories about PropOrNot.
As I have recently written
on my blog
, I believe PropOrNot is most likely one person who is not linked to any real organization
group or intelligence agency. The individual is most likely what I call a cheerleader, which is
basically a person with no reasonable connection to some conflict, yet who takes a side and sort
of lives vicariously through their imagined "struggle."
That being said, you're probably not going to do yourself any favors claiming that Maidan was
a fascist coup and that fascists are in charge in Ukraine. Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers
(quite the opposite, actually), and they were not the majority of people there. Basically you
condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis
and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented).
Without actually bothering to look at the issues involved, you are basically telling millions
of Ukrainians that they should have tolerated a corrupt, increasingly authoritarian government
that was literally stealing their future all because some right-wingers happened to latch on to
that cause too. Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's
Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the
nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine.
As for the slogan, yes, Slava Ukraini, Heroiam Slava! has its origins in the OUN, but there
are some important things to consider when discussing Ukrainian history.
Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not
speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them,
but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. Look at the average salary
in Ukraine and look into some of the instances of corruption (some of which continue to this day),
and you'll understand why a lot of people aren't going to get up in arms about someone waving
the red and black flag. Most people have become very cynical and see the nationalists as provocateurs
or clowns, and thus they don't take them seriously enough.
Before you call this good points, please familiarize yourself with the (accurate) history of
the Maidan, Ukraine, neo-nazi presence in that country, and Russian history. Please Kovpak seems
to be an embodiment of what Ames tries to convey.
The more experienced observer listens to all sides; and all sides lie at least a little, if
only for their own comfort. Beyond that, subjectivity is inescapable, and any pair of subjectives
will inevitably diverge. This is not a malign intent, it's existential circumstance, the burden
of identity, of individual life.
My own (admittedly cursory) analysis happens to coincide with Jim Kovpak's first para (PropOrNot
being primarily a lone "cheerleader"). And I can see merit, and the call for dispassionate assessment,
in some of his other points. This does not mean I endorse Kovpak over Ames, or Ames over Kovpak;
both contribute to the searching discussion with cogent observation (and the inevitable measure
of subjective evaluation).
I thank both for their remarks, and also thank our gracious hosts ;).
No, but it was hijacked by fascists. It is sad that more democratic/progressive forces lost
out, but that's what happened. You seem to be trying to avoid recognizing this fact by affirming
the rightfulness of those who began the revolt. Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism
or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them. It's time to mourn,
not to defend a parasitic Frankenstein that is trying to develop a European fascist movement.
Goons from that movement assaulted and injured May Day demonstrators in Sweden this year and then
fled back to the Ukraine. They are dangerous and should not be protected with illusions.
Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered,
spent, and gunned them
And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM
simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment.
Thus we have the ridiculous situation where supposedly reputable media like NYT and WaPoo
cheer on the Azov battalion and its brethren, and deny the very symbolism of the various Nazi
insignia and regalia featured on their uniforms. Jim makes some very good points, but he fell
way short in ignoring the role of the US MSM in this travesty.
And just in case someone tries to claim that we all make mistakes at times and that the MSM
made an honest mistake in regards to these neo-Nazi formations, the same thing has been happening
in Syria, where the US and its Gulf allies have armed extremists and have whitewashed their extremism
by claiming even Al Qaeda and its offshoots are noble freedom fighters.
Good on the parallel with Syria. The evolution, or distortion, of revolutionary movements as
they struggle to gain support and offensive power and then either are modified or jacked by "supporting"
external powers is not a cheering subject. The tendency to ignore that this has happened takes
two forms. One is what we are here discussing. The other is its opposite, as seen in, for example,
the way some writers try to maintain that there never was a significant democratic/progressive/humane
etc. element to the Syrian opposition.
Ukraine, as I understand it, is not monolith but has roughly 2 interest areas western and
eastern divided by the River Dnieper. The Western half is more pro-European and EU, the Eastern
half is more pro-Russia. The word "fascist" in Ukraine means something slightly different than
in means in the US and the EU. So I take your comment with a grain of salt, even though it is
interesting.
Ukraine's geographical location as the land "highway" between Europe and Asia has created a
long and embattled history there.
So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points because
you mistakenly think Russia is somehow opposed to US capitalism,
Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for
social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American
Exceptionalism.
And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing
for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative
power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues.
Thirded. The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents
a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion
of the fruits of the Russian oligarchic capitalist effort will benefit Russians, not elites
tied to the US, because of his self-interested nationalism. Not much to cheer about but better
than where things were headed when Yeltsin was in power.
This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere
does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting
words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies
names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker
of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls
it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad
faith commenting.
The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi
leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played
a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. There is absolutely no
equivalent to this with Occupy at all. Where does this false analogy even come from? No where
does the author state that Maidan was ONLY fascists, that is again your strawman response. Maidan
had a lot of support from pro-western, pro-european, pro-liberal forces. But to deny the key and
often lead roles played by neo-fascists in the actual organization, "self defense" and violent
confrontations with the Yanukovych goons is gross whitewashing.
Much worse is the way you rationalize the fascist OUN salute by arguing that it means something
else now, or it's become normalized, etc. These are all the same bullshit arguments made by defenders
of the Confederate flag. "It means something different now." "it's about heritage/being a rebel!/individualism!"
There is no "but" to this, and anyone who claims so is an asshole of the first order. The salute
descends directly from collaborators in the Holocaust and mass-murder of Jews and Poles and collaboration
with Nazis. If people claim they don't understand its origins, then educate them on why it's so
fucked up, don't make excuses for them. Really disgusting that you'd try to rationalize this away.
There is no "but" and no excuse, period.
"Russia Without BS" is one hell of an ironic name for someone bs-ing like this. Your failure
to actually engage the article, setting up and knocking down strawmen instead, and evading, using
false analogies-reveal your own intellectual pathologies. Try responding to the actual text here,
and maybe you'll be taken seriously.
My thought was that this post was an example of the strawman fallacy. Yet certainly Mr. Kovpak
wasn't just shooting from the hip. That is, he thought about this thing, wrote it, looked it over,
and said "well enough" and posted it. Poor logic, or bad faith?
I think the tell was his characterization of the article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking
points." What the hell is a "Russian talking point"? How do Ames' contentions follow said talking
points? Are he saying, perhaps, that Ames is another one of those Kremlin agents we've been hearing
about, or perhaps another "useful idiot"? Perhaps Ames of all people is a dupe for Putin,
right?
Hasbara, Ukrainian style. Bringing this junk onto NS, either this guy is alot of dumber than
he gives himself credit for, or he actually has no familiarity with NS, outside of the now- and
rightly-notorious WP/ProporNot blacklist. Probably the latter, since it looks like his comment
was a pre-masticated one-and-done.
I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this
country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side
won WWII.
I'm glad Jim Kovpak provided this background. I was very troubled to see Ames breezily smear
the Ukrainian uprising as "fascist," essentially writing off the protesters as U.S. proxies and
dismissing their grievances as either non-existent or irrelevant. Something similar has happened
in Syria, of course. Yes, the U.S. ruling blocs try to advance their interests in such places,
but if you ignore the people on the ground or dismiss them as irrelevant, you're just playing
into the hands of other tyrannical interests (in Syria: Assad, Putin, Hezbollah, etc.).
$5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't
US proxies. Gla that you straightened that out for us.
The grievances in Ukraine are many and are legitimate. But that the people's anger was hijacked
by US-financed proxies is a fact. Nuland was caught dictating that Yats would be the new PM, and
darned if he didn't become just that. The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the
appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko, and the country was plunged into a civil war. But
Yats and Porky are freedom-loving democrats! The old saying remains true: "They may be corrupt
SOBs, but they are our corrupt SOBs!"
Heck, for all the crocodile tears shed by the West about corruption and democracy, it has nurtured
corruption in Eastern Europe and looked the other way as democracy has been trampled. Including
in my native Bulgaria, where millions of dollars spent by the US and allied NGOs on promoting
and financing "free press" have seen Bulgaria's freedom of media ranking slip to third world levels.
But Bulgaria is a "democracy" because it is a member of the EU and NATO, and as such its elites
have done the bidding of its Western masters at the expense of Bulgaria's national interests and
the interests of its people. Ukraine is headed down that road, and all I can say to regular Ukrainians
is that they are in for an even bigger screwing down the road, cheer-led by the Western "democracies"
and "free" media.
Meddling by US hyperpower in the internal affairs and the replacement of one set of bastahds
with another set of bastahds that is beholden to the US is not progress, which is why we call
it out. After all the spilled blood and destruction sponsored by the US, can you honestly say
that Ukraine and Syria and Libya and Iraq are now better off, and that their futures are bright?
I can't, and I can't say that for my native country either. That's because this new version of
neocolonialism is the most destructive and virulent yet. And it is particularly insidious because
it fools well-meaning people, like yourself, into believing that it actually helps improve the
lives of the natives. It does not.
"The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of
Yats and Poroschenko "
That pretty much sums it up. Jim Kovpak does make some excellent points which help to understand
what the Ukranians are thinking. The discussion regarding the poor education system and potential
lack of knowledge of what certain symbolism refers to was really good. Sort of reminds me of the
Southerners in the US who still claim that the Stars and Bars is just about Southern heritage
and pride without bothering to consider the other ramifications and what the symbol means for
those who were persecuted at one time (and continuing to today). But yeah, I'm sure there are
those who think that that flag was just something the Duke boys used on the General Lee when trying
to outrun Roscoe.
All that being said, I don't believe anybody here thinks that Yanukovich was some paragon of
virtue ruling a modern utopia. The problem is that the new boss looks surprisingly familiar to
the old boss with the main difference being that the fruits of corruption are being funneled to
different parties with the people likely still getting the shaft.
If your a(just as many in the US are), it's quite possible they are also unaware of the current
US influence in their country, just as most US citizens are unaware of what the US has done in
other countries.
I'd be very interested in Jim Kovpak's thoughts on this.
$5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they
ain't US proxies. Gla[d] that you straightened that out for us.
Yes, it doesn't get any more blatant than that, and if anyone believes otherwise they are obviously
hooked on the officially sanctioned fake news, aka the MSM.
"Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers / Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers
than other Eastern European nations" silly at best!
Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security the trajectory
of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops analyzed over and over
The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi
symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military.
The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign
has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs
in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is
becoming more visible each day.
Your statements are pure propaganda and I would assume you work indirectly for Alexandra Chalupa!
Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian
school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard
that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that
can 180 mid-flight?
"Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence
of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well
documented)."
You must be kidding. Where to begin? Can we start with the simple fact that the Russian Foreign
Ministry wasn't handing out baked goods to Occupy protesters in NYC, egging them on as they tossed
molotov cocktails at police, who, strangely enough, refrained from shooting protesters until right
after a peaceful political settlement was reached? Coincidence or fate? Or maybe there is strong
evidence that right wing fanatics were the ones who started the shooting on that fateful day?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021
And sorry, no matter how much Kovpak denies it, the muscle behind the "glorious revolution"
was a bunch of far-right thugs that make our American alt-right look like girl scouts. Andrei
Biletsky, leader of Azov Battalion and head of Ukraine's creatively named Social-National Assembly,
says he's committed to "punishing severely sexual perversions and any interracial contacts that
lead to the extinction of the white man."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329
- Just like those hippies at Zuccotti Park, right?! Oh,and this guy received a medal from
Poroshenko.
I can keep going, but your "Maidan was just like Occupy!" argument pretty much speaks for itself.
Glory to the heroes indeed.
As someone who lived many years in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian and Russian and knows personally
many of the people involved, yes, Ukrainians know full well the origin of the Nazi slogans that
the local Nazis spout.
That doesn't mean that the average frustrated euromaidan supporter is a Nazi, but Nazis bussed
in from Galicia did eventually provide the muscle, as it were, and the rest of the country were
willing to get in bed with them, appoint them to run ministries, and let them have independent
military units.
Those Nazis are perfectly happy to call themselves Nazis.
What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but
all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland
and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story.
To be fair, there is a fairly wide gap between 'racist' and 'violent racist of the KKK/Nazi
variety'.
Also (yes, partly preaching to the choir, but with a purpose), liberals are perfectly happy
to stay quiet about enormous income/prosecution/incarceration/kill rate differences, so long as
those targeted/affected can (bureau-/meritocratically) be described as 'druggies/criminals/"extremists"/uneducated-thus-
undeserving '. And to ignore drone bombing of brown people. Etc. So all the pearl-clutching/virtue-signaling
concerning racism is pretty easy to shrug off as concerning little more than a plea to express
one's support for racist policy in a PC fashion.
(Highly recommend The New Jim Crow , which I've only recently started reading, for no
good reason. Bizarre to realize that all of the stuff that's being reported on a little bit now
has been going on for 30 years now (30y of silence / wir-haben-es-nicht-gewusst wrt the structural
nature; note that any/all reporting that im/explicitly describes these issues as "scandals"/"excesses"
is part of the problem.)
WOW I guess we have democracy, so your comment got through. In a way, your post confirms the
existence of rabidly anti-Russian entities the very point that Mark Ames makes. But you know,
there are people who know a thing or two about Russia and Ukraine, and can easily refute much
of your diatribe. (1) Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained
in Poland, US, and Canada).
Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption but every U. government since 1991
has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception but he was also not the worst one (do some research
on J. Timoshenko).
Corruption persists in U. today and based on the now-required property disclosures by U.
politicians may be even worse. It is likely correct that most U. don't give a damn about Bandera
but most U. also do not have any power to do anything about the neo-nazis, as they are (at least
in the western part of the country) numerous, vocal, and prone to violence.
There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members
on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of
the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 after a deal had been signed calling for early elections.
The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis.
(2) But it is your comments about the U. neo-nazi participation in the war that seem to clarify
who you really represent. This participation was not much discussed during the soviet times
I only found out that they continued to fight against the soviet state long after the war ended
recently from family members who witnessed it (in Belorussia, west. Ukr., and eastern Czechoslovakia).
Some of them witnessed the unspeakable cruelty of these Ukr. "troops" against villagers and any
partisans they could find. White-washing this period (or smearing soviet educational system) will
not help there is plenty of historical evidence for those who are interested in the subject.
(3) What you say about the Russian state promoting this or that is just a scurrilous attack,
with no proof. Not even worth exploring. On the other hand, there are plenty of documented murders
of Ukr. journalists (google Buzina a highly intelligent and eloquent Ukr. journalist, who was
gunned down in front of his home; there are quite a few others).
Ukr. in 2014 may have been protesting inept government, but what they ended up with is far
worse by any measure, Ukr. standard of living has gone way down. But now, the industrial base
of the country has been destroyed, and the neo-nazi genie will not go back into the bottle any
time soon. Ukr. as a unified place did not exist until after WWI, and the great divisions brought
starkly into contrast by the 2014 destruction of the state cannot be papered over anytime soon.
Appreciate the points you bring up but if the Ukranians truly want an end to an exploitative
system, they probably are not going to get it by allying themselves with Uncle Sugar. The US provided
billions of dollars to foment the coup and our oligarchs expect a return on that investment
they aren't going to suddenly start trust funds for all Ukranians out of the goodness of their
hearts. You are aware of that aren't you?
So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points
I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party
change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will
just laugh at you.
Hahahahahaha!
What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating
a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded
Voice of America and is
a regular with Ukraine's
"StopFake.org"
which is
funded
by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other
words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up.
Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to
America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American
democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. The good news
is that by the 80's nobody believed the state and its propagandists, even on the rare occasion
they were telling the truth, and America's people seem to be a bit ahead of the curve already,
which may explain the "fake news" hysteria from the creators and disseminators of fake news.
Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations,
but if you look at their polls and elections you see that the far-right in Ukraine does far
worse than it does in other Eastern and even Western European countries
Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer
to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana
Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started
out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to
the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too.
What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center.
That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out
as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government.
Here in America we saw something like that in the early 1990s, when KKK leader David Duke migrated
to the political mainstream by running for office as a Republican in Louisiana. Of course Duke
never changed his views, he just learned to dissemble himself in the way he sold his politics
to the public.
This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton
didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far!
Yes, these are dangerous people, as are most "true believers". I'm also becoming even more
disappointed at Ms, Clinton. For a while, she seemed to be keeping a little distance from her
dead-enders, but now that her and Bill are out back on the money trail (How much is enough?),
it doesn't look good.
Selling fear? Really? Isn't there a shelf life on that?
I'm not certain about the contents of that crock, good sir. We now live in a "culture" where
st IS gold. Otherwise, why are we now enduring a "popular press" full of "wardrobe malfunctions,"
new amazing bikini bodies, salacious gossip, and equally salacious "news?" (The Page Three was
shut down really because there was too much competition.)
Oh tempura, oh s'mores! (Latinate for "We're crisped!")
Indeed. The above article is great, great stuff and shows why some of us found Hillary more
disturbing than Trump. Therefore Ames' final assumption
And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon itself to soften up the
American media before Trump moves in for the kill.
seems a bit off. It's certainly true that Trump said news organizations should face greater
exposure to libel laws but one suspects this has more to do with his personal peevishness and
inability to take criticism than the Deep State-y motives described above. Clearly the "public
versus private" HillaryNixon in a pant suitwould have been just the person to embrace this sort
of censorship by smear and her connection with various shadowy exiles and in her own campaign
no less shows why Sanders' failure to make FP the center of his opposition was, if not a political
mistake, at least evidence of his limited point of view.
It's unlikely that anyone running this time would be able to change our domestic trajectory
but this fascism from abroad is a real danger IMO. In Reagan times some of us thought that Reagan
supported reactionary governments abroad because that's what he and his rogue's gallery including
Casey and North wished they could do here. The people getting hysterical over Trump while pining
for Hillary don't seem to know fascism when it's right in front of them. Or perhaps it's just
a matter of whose ox is going to be gored.
Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues.
I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream
lies about Russia and Ukraine.
No surprise, ever since the US, and Biden, got involved in Ukraine. And it is even probable,
that people like that were behind the Kennedy assassination, that the US has admitted was a conspiracy,
that is still protected from "journalistic sunshine" under lock and key by the US government.
Thanks for giving this article its own post, and thanks to dcblogger for providing the
link in yesterday's Water Cooler.
Seems to me that this little bout of D-party/CIA incompetence, and/or incontinence, will finally
sound the death knell for the Operation Paperclip gang's plan. Good riddance.
"... The MSM has lost control of the narrative. The big dailies continue to hemorrhage ad revenue, month in and month out, year in and year out. Their existence going forward will be even more dependent on government assistance. Fake News is the pathetic death rattle of the neoliberal order. ..."
More importantly, the editor's note vaults into verbal gymnastics in an attempt to simultaneously
rationalize and distance itself from an obviously flawed primary source. Any data analysis is
only as good as the sum of its parts, and it's clear that PropOrNot's methodology was lacking.
The Post, of course, was merely reporting what PropOrNot said . Yet it used declarative
language throughout, sans caveat, lending credence to a largely unknown organization that lumps
together independent left-wing publications and legitimately Russian-backed news services. The
Post diminished its credibility at a time when media credibility is in short supply, and the non-apologetic
editor's note doesn't help.
Almost two weeks after its article ran, the Post ran a
sort of correction in the form of an editorial comment in italics pasted on top of the online
edition of Timberg's November 24 piece (where only those looking for the by then old original
story would find it). In that note, the editors say that the paper
did not name any of the sites [on PropOrNot's blacklist], does not itself vouch for the
validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article
purport to do so. Since publication of the Post 's story, PropOrNot has removed some
of those sites from its list.
Of course, the damage was already done, as the original article achieved widespread circulation
via the Post 's wire service; it would be up to all those news organizations that bought
and ran the story, or reported their own versions of it, to make any correction.
Meanwhile, the facile dodge of "we didn't name the sites" ignores the reality that the Post
had prominently showcased PropOrNot and let its name vouch for the heretofore unknown group's
credibility. The paper didn't have to run the list; anyone with a smartphone could do a Google
search, find PropOrNot's website as the first listing, go to the homepage and find a link
button headed "The List."
And apparently plenty of readers did that. While thanks to the Post 's grant of anonymity,
PropOrNot's hidden principals remained safe from inquiring reporters and Russian hackers alike,
editors of sites named on its McCarthyite hit list quickly found themselves deluged with venomous
calls and emails. As Jeffrey St. Clair, a co-founder and editor of CounterPunch.org , another
site listed prominently as a propaganda tool, recalls, "The morning after the Post published
its article, I found 1,000 emails in my inbox, mostly hate mail and death threats."
Expert media commentators criticized the Post's handwave in the form of an editor's note
that it placed at the top of a story that is now history, as opposed to news. The mild concession
is likely to be read only by fans of the 199 sites that were defamed by the Post, and journalists
who've taken interest in the row and not the vast public that read the story through the post
and other major outlets, like USA Today, that re-reported or syndicated Timberg's piece.
It all depends upon who you follow on Twitter, but from my check-in's today, the WaPo is not
coming off well.
This whole 'fake news' mess is downright weird.
I have trouble understanding how anyone can govern, given the growing legitimacy problems.
It seems as if there are (very well greased) wheels within (extravagantly funded) wheels moving
behind the scenes.
Meanwhile, apparently Obama has formally requested that the Intel Community develop a 'consensus
report' about the role of the Russians in this most recent election (per Emptywheel). "Senior
officials' in Congress have already been briefed, and some are apparently leaking: this much smoke
signals a battle royale behind the scenes.
The worst possible outcome, IMVHO, is failing to investigate and come clean.
Every time our government is too gutless to deal with reality - whether WMD, or the Financial
Crisis - the legitimacy of government is further eroded. It would be helpful if Hillary renounced
the Presidency, and agreed that even if the election should be overturned, that she would defer
to some other person. The investigation should not be used as a recount, nor as a re-do. It should
function only to restore credibility to the US federal government, and for no other reason.
Unfortunately for Trump, if he blocks this kind of investigation, it will only diminish his
credibility, and weaken the very power he seeks to hold.
Life is full of paradoxes and mysteries; this one takes the cake.
I agree with your comment re Twitter, but Twitter is heavy with journalists who love the story
of a media fight. This is catnip to them.
The Washington Post story was tweeted far more heavily when it first ran than the follow-on
criticism was. The story proper got 14,800 comments. It was picked up by USA Today, CNN, and I
haven't even begun to track how many different other publishers. The original reach was at least
an order of magnitude, and probably two orders of magnitude, bigger than the discussion of the
itty bitty walkback.
Please see our Tip Jar in the right column. It tells you how to donate using a debit or credit
card, or send a check.
We had a recent emergency fundraiser, and some of that has already been allocated to extra
site coverage (to have others do more site-minding and content generation so as to free me up
to spend time on this stuff) and the other part (a bit more than half the total) is to fund expenses
for litigation.
Is this episode really Bezos carrying water for a faction of the deep state? They had to have
known that if you malign the entirety of the alt media-left and right that they'd show their teeny
little teeth.
I bet they feed this chump Timberg to the crocodiles ultimately. Meanwhile Mark Ames will ferret
out the weird nexus of Ukrainian Nazi types. But since the WaPo will take the heat and the public
will lose interest, nobody will care. But in the end the 4 or 5 folks who came up with this scheme
will have achieved their goals:
*Throw mud on non corporate news reportage.
*Fire a warning shot over Trumps bow
*Plant seeds with the population for the future when some ginned up provocation will again put
Russia in the crosshairs of a black propaganda campaign.
These archonic m_fers are relentless. Russia represents an independent power which absolutely
cannot be permitted by Empire. This is part of a long term strategy to box Russia in. They are
seen as the weaker of the Sino Russian partnership and are being targeted first.
Not having witnessed anything like this before I'm having trouble understanding the strategy
here. What potential end game is there in dealing directly with PropOrNot? Jim Moody's time is
valuable, Yves' time is valuable, but they seem likely to be a few nobodies who no one would have
paid any attention to if the Washington Post hadn't amplified the reach of their amateurish operation
by factor of a million.
I think you said it all there without maybe realizing it - PropOrNot may seem like
harmless nobodies and, left to their own devices and not given the oxygen of publicity that is
what they'd have remained.
But there are no accidents in life. The Washington Post (and do keep in mind its owner)
picked up on their output and played their tune on the Mighty Media Wurlitzer thereby amplifying
it. That alone is suggestive that PropOrNot may not be the two guys working out of their Mom's
basement which it is easy to think they might be.
Add in the fact that - worldwide now, I can tell you that even outside the U.S. this whole
"fake news" meme is still getting lots of airtime, the BBC in England is running 'Russia Hacked
the U.S. Election' stories right now as I watch and the Japanese language media has similar too
- what the Washington Post is seeking to do looks very well orchestrated and coordinated it means
that you must not take anything at face value here.
The MSM is all in. Last night the PBS Newshour ran the first in a series of stories
on FakeNews, with favorably framed clips of Clinton and Sheryl Sandberg, and an extended
interview with Marc Fisher of the WaPo. Oddly, no mention of the PropOrNot fiasco.
It doesn't take a tin foil hat to believe the globalist-neocon-neolib-blob_thing feels it necessary
to delegitimize Trump and Trump's election in order to reassure its merry band of practitioners
that it's still biz as usual in the One World.
And tho it may seem a challenge to re-paint "Lying Hillary" as the beacon of truth, challenges
are what keep one motivated and ever stronger. No pain no gain.
P.S. Irony Of The Year Award goes to Russia for hacking and releasing real news. If we are
giving them the credit for DNC hacks and Hillary's secret private server discovery.
I went to a fundraiser last night where the very politically involved crowd was largely liberal
and one of the award presenters brought up 'fake news' during her speech. If I'm not mistaken
a member of this woman's family was one of Clinton's superdelegates. This 'fake news' meme is
definitely being spread far and wide.
We need to pursue the source of the defamation. See the BuzzFeed story yesterday, which is
generally very sympathetic to our position. Yet even that reporter says, Why have you gone after
the Post and not ProOrNot too?
I think this is at the very most six guys and probably more like two or three, for reasons
not worth taking the time to explain. And do not forget that the New Yorker said not only they
but other major pubs were shown the story and passed on it.
So the question is more: why did the Post pick up on obvious rubbish and treat it as newsworthy?
This may have less to do with grand conspiracy as much as a bad intersection of events, such as:
the Post under Bezos explicitly placing much more pressure on reporters to churn out stories quickly,
which means less fact checking; hysteria over Russia and fake news; and individual reporters and
editors seeing it as to their advantage to be in front of a hot area, no matter at what risk.
Recall the Post has run such nutty stories as one saying that Hillary's 9/11 collapse was due
to Putin poisoning her.
I think WAPO picked it up because they were obviously all in for Clinton during the election.
Whether Bezos was the hand behind this or not, WAPO has certainly focused on Trump. They even
admitted they were doing it as Bob Woodward disclosed in a Zero Hedge article. And of course,
WAPO assisted Clinton against Sanders with their coverage which has been documented many times.
Now Clinton is on the bandwagon of the fake news fiasco. She just gave a speech about it Thursday.
Thanks Yves (and Clive) for the responses. My concern is that if a shoddy three-man operation,
paired with a useful idiot MSM amplifier, can provoke a response that puts sites like NC on the
defensive and takes time from original reporting, it could be a template for quick-and-dirty future
attacks against independent media outlets. It seems like the amplifier is the only part of the
chain that can't just change domain names and set up shop somewhere else.
But I can see how ignoring them entirely isn't an optimal solution either. I'll keep throwing
my change in the tip jar and seeing how it all unfolds.
The PorN site is a dark site. We don't know who the principals are or where its funding comes
from. YYYYvesYYY also said NC needs to know what jurisdiction to file in in order to pursue PorN,
but that is not even known at this point. But in the Wapo response to TruthDig, Wapo stated they
did have "numerous" discussions with some persons at PorN before running the story.
So you got to shake the tree by the branches you can grab. The ball is now in Wapo's court
to state, "Journalistic integrity demands we do not reveal our sources in order to protect their
safety."
Meanwhile PorN is calling upon the entire USG security apparatus to investigate 200 websites
for Treason, but we are unsure about which country[government] Treason is being committed against
in One World. This doesn't sound like a very safe situation for simple minded provincial US citizen
homebodies.
I have been browsing your links for many years now I find them well balanced, genuine, thought
provoking, and usually quite deep. And it is not just me your quality is well recognized among
financial online community and punditry.
It is important you treat this thing with the right kind of attention. This is not mccarthian.
If it would be, you would be locked down in some hole in a secret location. This is somebody claiming
you have silicone tits and an extramarital affair with Michael Moore. Nobody gives a shit about
this, or their software, or WaPo and thir article even if it gets 10 million retweets. Twitter
attention span is 1 minute.
Sure, sue everybody. But never give them an aureola of some dark sinister power. Ridicule them
every way of the step. Ridicule "newspapers of record". Ridicule retweets. Have fun with it. Find
new cases of such crap, where you personally are not affected. Help Melania Trump in her great
fight against online violence :-)
Just never concede to this as a "media fight" or "two versions of reality". This has nothing
to do with news or reality. Do not give them that ground. This is some insignificant ass claiming
you have fake tits, and it was picked up by an obsolete marketing tool called WaPo. A claim of
an extramarital affair with Michael Moore would probably get even more coverage and more retweets
and I bet some cable news discussions about public health consequences of missionary position
with such a voluptuous man.
We are fighting a legal battle and a political battle. The need to do both somewhat restricts
our degrees of freedom. The political battle is ultimately the far more important one, since the
"fake news" scare is part of a major push to restrict content on the web, by de facto rather than
de jure means.
you're kidding yourself, every time lately that I look at mainstream headlines the fake news
story is there near the top, can no longer stomach the news hour but another commenter says they're
doing a series think about all those proper folks demanding their kids not read alternative views?
The only consolation I can think of is that hillary lost because clearly this story was put out
in advance of her losing and would still be amplified had she won, .the outcome looks bleak either
way from here might as well fight it
I can tell you these fake news websites articles were heavily promoted here in Europe, so the
consequences are wide spread world wide.
I tried to explain the reasons and people behind ProporNot, but my comments were censored on
3 of the biggest digital newspapers in The Netherlands, some of them are in close contact with
Soros.
We have national elections in March 2017 and I can tell you the majority of the people are
mad as hell and they know the news presented to them in the MSM are/were heavily biased
towards Clinton. The MSM are sh*t scared what will happen in March 2017, an earthquake in the
political landscape. All the liberal political leaders are now suddenly promoting political stuff
that was unimaginable 2 years ago.
I have followed your website on and off the last 5 years and the idea that you are guided by
the Ruskies is absolutely preposterous even insane.
I just wonder, was Wapo so blinded by the total unexpected loss of Clinton that they keep on
publicing this nonsense or is it the trench war by Trump through his tweets. Wapo must have been
aware of the amateurish drivel from Propornot and took a big risk of being exposed as havily biased
and unprofessional with a heavy backlash.
Anyways, I would like to donate to you in this battle, do you accept Paypal as well.
I wish you and your team lots of success, Yves in this battle for truth.
However, if PropOrNot doesn't respond you might be able to get their Whois privacy provider
to get you the real owner's details click on "File a Claim" at
https://www.domainsbyproxy.com/default.aspx
to see their process.
I realize that there were a number of right wing news outlets included in this de facto
censorship effort. But, they seem to be in a much stronger position than the left wing ones.
Wider distribution, less choosy about what they'll run, favored by the incoming power elite, etc.
Except, perhaps for a few paleocons-turned-libertarian-contrarians like Paul Craig Roberts. The
Drudge Report types seem less vulnerable.
I haven't been paying as much attention as I should to post a comment. But, first order, it
looks like this imbalance may pertain to targeting. No one could expect to dull the impact of
the Drudge Report by including it in an app of this kind. It is simply too prominent. Therefore,
dampening the influence of the Drudge Report (and similar sites) was not the point of this little
exercise.
Slurring the actual targets by including Drudge & company in the app seems . more the point.
Last night the PBS Newshour did a segment on "fake news." They are also participating in the
current PBS pledge drive. Perhaps they are hoping that George Soros will send them a big check.
One had hoped that the show would improve now that the election is over. One was wrong.
The MSM has lost control of the narrative. The big dailies continue to hemorrhage ad revenue,
month in and month out, year in and year out. Their existence going forward will be even more
dependent on government assistance. Fake News is the pathetic death rattle of the neoliberal order.
Short-termism is a real problem for the US politicians. It is only now the "teeth of dragon"
sowed during domination of neoliberalism since 80th start to show up in unexpected places. And reaction
is pretty predictable. As one commenter said: "Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change
is the USA."
Notable quotes:
"... Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'. ..."
"... Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. ..."
"... i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists) ..."
"... Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. ..."
"... The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there? ..."
"... Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us ..."
"... The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet. ..."
"... The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions. ..."
"... What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord! ..."
"... As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. ..."
"... Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. ..."
"... The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly 4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn ..."
"... 96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. ..."
"... Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA. ..."
"... Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. ..."
"... There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. ..."
"... And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. ..."
"... Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. ..."
"... I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor. ..."
"... The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling ..."
"... Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying. ..."
"... This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play. ..."
"... At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show. ..."
"... Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA ..."
"... Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms. ..."
"... I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. ..."
"... In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. ..."
"... after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing? ..."
"... The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS. ..."
"... 'CIA Team B' ..."
"... 'Committee on the Present Danger' ..."
"... 'Office of Special Plans' ..."
"... Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. ..."
"... It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. ..."
"... He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power. ..."
It is worse than "shiny object." Human brains have a latency issue - the first time they hear
something, it sticks. To unstick something, takes a lot of counter evidence.
So, a Goebbels-like big lie, or shiny object can be told, and then it can take on a life of
its own. False flags operate under this premise. There is an action (false flag), and then false
narrative is issued into press mouthpieces immediately. This then plants a shiny object in sheeple
brains. It then takes too much mental effort for average sheeple to undo this narrative, so "crowds"
can be herded.
Six million dead is a good example of this technique.
Fortunately, with the internet, "supposed fake news sites like ZH" are spreading truth so fast
- that shiny stories issued by our Oligarch overlords are being shot down quickly.
Bezo's, who owns Washington Post, is taking rents by avoiding sales taxes; not that I'm a fan
of sales taxes. But, ultimately, Bezos is taking rental thefts, and he is afraid of Trump - who
may change the law, hence collapse the profit scheme of Amazon.
Cognitive Dissonance -> Oldwood Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM
Oldwood. I have a great deal of respect for you and your intelligent opinions.
My only concern is our constant and directed attention towards the 'liberals' and 'progressives'.
When we do so we are thinking it is 'them' that are the problem.
In fact it is the force behind 'them' that is the problem. If we oppose 'them', we are wasting
our energy upon ghosts and boogeymen.
Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics
used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'.
chunga -> Cognitive Dissonance Dec 10, 2016 11:33 AM
I've been reading what the blue-teamers are saying over on the "Democratic Underground" site
and for a while they've been expressing it's their "duty" to disrupt this thing. They are now
calling Trump a "Puppet Regime".
Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle
hard. Also watch for moar of the Suprun elector frauds pop out of the woodwork. The Russian
people must be absolutely galvanized by what's happening, USSA...torn into many opposing directions.
dark pools of soros -> chunga Dec 10, 2016 1:38 PM
First tell them to change their name to the Progressive Party of Globalists. Then remind them
that many democrats left them and voted for Trump.. Remind them again and again that if they really
want to see blue states again, they have to actually act like democrats again
I assure you that you'll be banned within an hour from any of their sites
American Gorbachev -> Oldwood Dec 10, 2016 10:12 AM
not an argument to the contrary, but one of elongating the timing
i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another
of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on
this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more
successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a
two-fer for the globalist statists)
with a political timetable operative as well, whereby some (pardon the pun :) trumped up excuse
for impeachment investigations/proceedings can consume the daily news during the run-up to the
mid-term elections (with the intent of flipping the Senate and possibly House)
these are very powerful, patient, and deliberate bastards (globalist statists) who may very
well have engineered Trump's election for the very purpose of marginalizing, near the point of
eliminating, the rural, christian, middle-class, nationalist voices from subsequent public debate
Oldwood -> American Gorbachev Dec 10, 2016 10:21 AM
The problem is that once Trump becomes president, he will have much more power to direct the
message as well as the many factions of government agencies that would otherwise be used to substantiate
so called Trump failures. This is a calculated risk scenario for them, but to deny Trump the presidency
by far produces more positives for them than any other.
They will have control of the message and will likely shut down much of alternate media news.
It is imperative that Trump be stopped BEFORE taking the presidency.
sleigher -> overbet Dec 10, 2016 10:00 AM
"I read one morons comment that the IP address was traced back to a Russian IP. Are people
really that dumb? I can post this comment from dozens of country IPs right now."
Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected
to the internet. IP addresses from Russia mean nothing.
kellys_eye -> Nemontel Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM
The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert
and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there?
Paul Kersey -> Nemontel Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM
"Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy."
And most of our politicians choose the Oligarchy. Trump's choices:
Anthony Scaramucci, Goldman Sachs
Gary Cohn, Goldman Sachs
Steven Mnuchin. Goldman Sachs
Steve Bannon, Goldman Sachs
Jared Kushner, Goldman Sachs
Wilbur Ross, Rothschild, Inc
The working man's choices.....very limited.
Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey Dec 10, 2016 10:27 AM
"Barack Obama received more money from Goldman Sachs employees than any other corporation.
Tim Geithner, Obama's first treasury secretary, was the protege of one-time Goldman CEO Robert
Rubin. "
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Nameshavebeench... -> Nemontel Dec 10, 2016 11:53 AM
If Trump gets hit, the 'official story' of who did it will be a lie.
There needs to be a lot of online discussion about this ahead of time in preparation. If/when
the incident happens, there needs to be a successful counter-offensive that puts an end to the
Deep State. (take from that what you will)
We've seen the MO many times now;
Pearl Harbor
Iran in the 50's
Congo
Vietnam
Most of Latin America many times over
JFK
911
Sandy Hook
Boston Marathon 'Bombings'
Numerous 'mass shootings'
The patterns are well established & if Trump gets hit it should be no surprise, now the 'jackals'
need to be exterminated.
Also, keep in mind that everything we're hearing in all media just might be psyops/counter-intel/planted
'news' etc.
sgt_doom -> Nemontel Dec 10, 2016 1:25 PM
Although I have little hope for this happening, ideally Trump should initiate full forensic
audits of the CIA, NSA, DIA and FBI. The last time a sitting president undertook an actual audit
of the CIA, he had his brains blown out (President John F. Kennedy) and the Fake News (CBS, NBC,
ABC, etc.) reported that a fellow who couldn't even qualify as marksman, the lowest category (he
was pencilled in) was the sniper.
Then, on the 50th anniversary of that horrible coup d'etat, another Fake News show (NPR) claimed
that a woman in the military who worked at the rifle range at Atsuga saw Oswald practicing weekly
- - absurd on the fact of it, since women weren't allowed at military rifle ranges until the late
1970s or 1980s (and I doublechecked and there was never a woman assigned there in the late 1950s).
Just be sure he has trustworthy bodyguards, unlike the last batch of phony Secret Service agents
(and never employ anyone named Elmer Moore).
2rigged2fail -> Nemontel Dec 10, 2016 4:04 PM
Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and
Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us
All these Russian interference claims require one to believe that the MSM and democrat machine
got out played and out cheated by a bunch of ruskies. This is the level of desperation the democrats
have fallen too. To pretend to be so incompetent that the Russians outplayed and overpowered their
machine. But I guess they have to fall on that narrative vs the fact that a "crazy" real estate
billionaire with a twitter account whipped their asses.
Democrats, you are morally and credulously bankrupt. all your schemes, agenda's and machinations
cannot put humpty dumpty back together again. So now it is another period of scorched earth. The
Federal Bureaucracy will fight Trump tooth and nail, joined by the democrats in the judiciary,
and probably not a few rino's too.
It is going to get ugly, like a machete fight. W. got a taste of it with his Plame affair,
the brouhaha over the AGA firings, the regime of Porter Goss as DCI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Goss
DuneCreature -> cherry picker Dec 10, 2016 10:30 AM
The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers
all over this election and elections all over the planet.
The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and
blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even
in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or
spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or
millions.
You said a mouth full, cherry picker. ..... Until the US Intel community goes 'bye bye' the
world will HATE the US. ... People aren't stupid. They know who is behind the evil shit.
... ... ..
G-R-U-N-T Dec 10, 2016 9:39 AM
What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self
annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to
believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines,
good lord!
Colborne Dec 10, 2016 9:37 AM
As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration,
of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim
with with neocon cadres. So, that's the lay of the terrain there now, that's who's running
the place. And they aren't going without a fight apparently.
Interesting times , more and more so.
66Mustanggirl Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM
For those of us who still have a grip on reality, here are the facts of this election:
Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and
pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. Are
they really trying to blame the Russians and "fake" news for THAT?? Really??
The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly
4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn, where Hillary racked up 2 million
more votes than Trump. Should we give credit to the Russians and "fake" news for that, too?
96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even
bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. On average 100 Million Americans
don't bother to vote.The Russians and "fake" news surely aren't responsible for THAT!
But given this is a story from WaPo, I think will just give a few days until it is thoroughly
discredited.
max2205 -> 66Mustanggirl Dec 10, 2016 11:04 AM
And she won CA by 4 million. She hates she only gets a limited amount of electoral votes..
tough shit rules are rules bitch. Suck it
HalEPeno Dec 10, 2016 9:43 AM
Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA.
Clara Tardis Dec 10, 2016 9:45 AM
This is a vid from the 1950's, "How to spot a Communist" all you have to do is swap out commie
for: liberal, neocon, SJW and democrat and figure out they've about won....
This is the same CIA that let Pakistan build up the Taliban in Afganistan during the 1990s
and gave Pakistan ISI (Pakistan spy agency) hundreds of millions of USD which the ISI channeled
to the Taliban and Arab freedom fighters including a very charming chap named Usama Bin Laden.
The CIA is as worthless as HRC.
Fuck them and their failed intelligence. I hope Trump guts the CIA like a fish. They need a
reboot.
Yes We Can. But... -> venturen Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM
Why might the Russians want Trump? If there is anything to the stuff I've been reading about
the Clintons, they are like cornered animals. Putin just may think the world is a safer, more
stable place w/o the Clintons in power.
TRM -> atthelake Dec 10, 2016 10:44 AM
If it is "on" then those doing the "collections" should be aware that a lot of people they
will be "collecting" have read Solzhenitsyn.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every
Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he
would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"
Those doing the "collections" will have to choose and choose wisely the side they are on. How
much easier would it be for them to report back "Sorry, couldn't find them" than to face the wrath
of a well armed population?
Abaco Dec 10, 2016 9:53 AM
The clowns running the intelligence agencies for the US have ZERO credibility. Clapper
sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself
saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever
about lying to Congress. He was not fired or reprimanded in any way. He retired with a generous
pension. He is a treasonous basrtard who should be swinging from a lamppost. These people serve
their political masters - not the people - and deserve nothing but mockery and and a noose.
mendigo Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM
As reported on infowars:
On Dec 9 0bomber issued executive order providing exemption to Arms Export Control Act to permit
supplying weapons (ie sams etc) to rebel groups in Syria as a matter "essential to national security
"interests"".
Be careful in viewing this report as is posted from RT - perhaps best to wait for corraboaration
on front page of rededicated nyt to be sure and avoid fratrenizing with Vlad.
Separately Gabard has introduced bill : Stop Arming Terrorists Act.
David Wooten Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM
There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia.
The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated
Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion
of human rights, Saudi Arabia.
Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the
Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center
for Strategic and International Studies and others. All of these institutions should be registered
as foriegn agents and any cleared US citizen should have his or her clearance revoked if they
do any work for these organizations, either as a contractor or employee. And these Gulf states
have all been donating oil money to UK and US universities so lets include the foreign studies
branches of universities in the registry of foreign agents, too.
And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With
training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with
other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. Arms companies who sell
deadly weapons to the Gulf States, in turn, donate money to Congressmen and now own politicians
such as Senators Graham and McCain. It's no wonder Graham wants to help his pals - er owners.
So what we have here ('our' government) is institutionalized influence, if not outright control,
of US foreign policy by some of the most vicious states on the planet,
especially Saudi Arabia - whose religious police have been known to beat school girls fleeing
from burning buildings because they didn't have their headscarves on.
As Hillary's 2014 emails have revealed, Qatar and Saudi Arabia support ISIS and were doing
so about the same time as ISIS was sweeping through Syria and Iraq, cutting off the heads of Christians,
non-Sunnis and just about anyone else they thought was in the way. The Saudi/Gulf States are the
driving force to get rid of Assad and that is dangerous as nuclear-armed Russia protects him.
If something isn't done about this, the Gulf oil states may get US into a nuclear war with Russia
- and won't care in the least.
Richard Whitney Dec 10, 2016 10:10 AM
So...somehow, Putin was able to affect the election one way, and the endorsements for HRC and
the slander of Trump by and from Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, practically
every big-city newspaper, practically every newspaper in Europe, every EU mandarin, B Streisand,
Keith Olberman, Comedy Central, MSNBC, CNN, Lady Gaga, Lena Dunham and a wad of other media outlets
and PR-driven-celebs couldn't affect that election the other way.
Sounds unlikely on the face of it, but hats off to Vlad. U.S. print and broadcast media, Hollywood,
Europe...you lost.
seataka Dec 10, 2016 10:11 AM
The Reverse Blockade
"Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth
blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of
healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its
opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize
that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method.
" page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski
more
just the tip -> northern vigor Dec 10, 2016 11:51 AM
that car ride for the WH to the capital is going to be fun.
Arnold -> just the tip Dec 10, 2016 12:12 PM
Your comment ticked one of my remaining Brain Cells.
I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity:
"The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming
(no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor.
The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling. 50%
of the Federal govt needs to go.....now.
What is BEYOND my comprehension is how anyone would think that in Putin's mind, Trump would
be preferable to Hillary. She and her cronies are so corrupt, he would either be able to blackmail
or destroy her (through espionage and REAL leaks) any time he wanted to during her presidency.
Do TPTB think we are this fucking stupid?
madashellron Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM
Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA
Spying.
I love this. Trump is not eager to "drain the swamp" and to collide with the establishment,
anyway he has no viable economic plan and promised way too much. However if they want to lead
a coup for Hilary with the full backing of most republican and democrat politicians just to get
their war against Russia, something tells me that the swamp will be drained for real when the
country falls apart in chaos.
northern vigor Dec 10, 2016 10:36 AM
Fuckin' Obama interfered in the Canadian election last year by sending advisers up north to
corrupt our laws. He has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the Russians.
I notice liberals love to point fingers at others, when they are the guilty ones. It must be
in the Alinsky handbook.
Pigeon -> northern vigor Dec 10, 2016 10:38 AM
Called "projection". Everything they accuse others of doing badly, illegally, immorally, etc.
- means that is EXACTLY what they are up to.
just the tip -> northern vigor Dec 10, 2016 11:35 AM
Trump should not only 'defund' them but should end all other 'programs' that are providing
funds to them. Drug trade, bribery, embezzelment, etc. End the CIA terror organization.
Skiprrrdog Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM
Putin for Secretary of State... :-)
brianshell Dec 10, 2016 10:50 AM
Section 8, The congress shall have the power to...declare war...raise armies...navies...militia.
The National Security Act charged the CIA with coordinating the nation's intelligence activities
and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence affecting national security.
Rogue members of the executive branch have overstepped their authority by ordering the CIA
to make war without congressional approval or oversight.
A good deal of the problems created by the United States, including repercussions such as terrorism
have been initiated by the CIA
Under "make America great", include demanding congress assume their responsibility regarding
war.
Rein in the executive and the CIA
DarthVaderMentor Dec 10, 2016 10:59 AM
This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that
fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice
on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's
play.
At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this
story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged
traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of
Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show.
Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles
and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the
people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false
flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over
the years into the CIA
The fact that's forgotten about this is that if the story was even slightly true, it shows
how incompetent the Democrats are in running a country, how Barak Obama was an intentional incompetent
trying to drive the country into the ground and hurting its people, how even with top technologies,
coerced corrupted vendors and trillions in funding the NSA, CIA and FBI they were outflanked by
the FSB and others and why Hillary's server was more incompetent and dangerous a decision than
we think.
Maybe Hillary and Bill had their server not to hide information from the people, but maybe
to actually promote the Russian hacking?
Why should Trump believe the CIA? What kind of record and leadership do they have that anyone
other than a fool should listen to them?
small axe Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM
At some point Americans will need to wake up to the fact that the CIA has and does interfere
in domestic affairs, just as it has long sought to counter "subversion" overseas. The agency is
very likely completely outside the control of any administration at this point and is probably
best seen as the enforcement arm of the Deep State.
As the US loses its empire and gains Third World status, it is (sadly) fitting that the CIA
war to maintain docile populations becomes more apparent domestically.
Welcome to Zimbabwe USA.
marcusfenix Dec 10, 2016 11:10 AM
what I don't understand is why the CIA is even getting tangled up in this three ring circus
freak show.
Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo
in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration
with open arms.
I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and
maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing
his cabinet. All these stars are not exactly going to support their president going belly
up to the bar with Putin. and since Trump has no military or civilian leadership experience (which
is why I believe he has loaded up on so much brass in the first place, to compensate) I have no
doubt they will have tremendous influence on policy.
In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even
consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface,
maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter.
perhaps some have grown so large and so powerful that they have their own agendas? it's not as
if our federal government has ever really been one big happy family there have been many times
when the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. and congress is week so oversight
of this monolithic military and intelligence entities may not be as extensive as we would like
to think.
after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria
so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing?
and is this really all just a small glimpse of some secret war within, which every once in
a while bubbles up to the surface?
CheapBastard Dec 10, 2016 11:34 AM
The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate
all sorts of irrational BS.
However, there is no doubt the Russians stole my TV remote last week.
The Intel agencies have been politicized since the late 1970's; look up 'CIA Team B'
and the 'Committee on the Present Danger' and their BS 'minority report' used by the
original NeoCons to sway public opinion in favor of Ronald Reagan and the arms buildup of the
1980's, which led to the first sky-high deficits. It also led to a confrontational stance against
the Soviet Union which almost led to nuclear war in 1983: The 1983 War Scare Declassified
and For Real
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb533-The-Able-Archer-War-Scare-Decl...
The honest spook analysts were forced out, then as now, in favor of NeoCons with political
agendas that were dangerously myopic to say the least. The 'Office of Special Plans'
in the Pentagon cherry-picked or outright fabricated intel in order to justify the NeoCon/Israeli
wet-dream of total control of oil and the 'Securing the (Israeli) Realm' courtesy of invading
parts of the Middle East and destabilizing the rest, with the present mess as the wholly predictable
outcome. The honest analysts told them it would happen, and now they're gone.
This kind of organizational warping caused by agency politicization is producing the piss-poor
intel leading to asinine decisions creating untold tragedy; that the WaPo is depending upon this
intel from historically-proven tainted sources is just one more example of the incestuous nature
of the relations between Traditional Media and its handlers in the intel community.
YHC-FTSE Dec 10, 2016 11:54 AM
This isn't a "Soft Coup". It's the groundwork necessary for a rock hard, go-for-broke, above
the barricade, tanks in the street coup d'etat. You do not get such a blatant accusation from
the CIA and establishment echo vendor, unless they are ready to back it up to the hilt with action.
The accusations are serious - treason and election fraud.
Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself
in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in
his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. His natural "Mistake"
is seeking people at his level of business acumen - his version of real, ordinary people - when
billionaires/multimillionaires are actually Type A personalities, usually predatory and addicted
to money. In his world, and in America in general, money equates to good social standing more
than any other facet of personal achievements. It is natural for an American to equate "Good"
with money. I'm a Brit and foreigners like me (I have American cousins I've visited since I was
a kid) who visit the States are often surprised by the shallow materialism that equates to culture.
So we have a bunch of dubious Alpha types addicted to money in transition to take charge of
government who know little or nothing about the principle of public service. Put them in a room
together and without projects they can focus on, they are going to turn on each other for supremacy.
I would not be surprised if Trump's own cabinet destroys him or uses leverage from their own power
bases to manipulate him.
Mike Pompeo, for example, is the most fucked up pick as CIA director I could have envisaged.
He is establishment to his core, a neocon torture advocate who will defend the worst excesses
of the intelligence arm of the MIC no matter what. One word from his mouth could have stopped
this bullshit about Russia helping Trump win the election. Nobody in the CIA was going to argue
with the new boss. Yet here we are, on the cusp of another attack on mulitple fronts. This is
how you manipulate an incumbent president to dial up his paranoia to the max and failing that,
launch a coup d'etat.
It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American
public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to
destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. I think he was
his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him and he chose
his cabinet from the establishment swamp dwellers to best protect him from his enemies. Wrong
choices, granted, but understandable.
He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent
their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a
complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie
Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in
power.
flaminratzazz ->YHC-FTSE Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM
I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of
him,,
+1 I think he was just dickin around with throwin his hat in the ring, was going to go have fun
calling everyone names with outlandish attacks and lo and behold he won.. NOW he is shitting himself
on the enormity of his GREATEST fvkup in his life.
jomama ->YHC-FTSE Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM
Unless you can show how Trump's close ties to Wall St. (owes banks there around 350M currently
YHC-FTSE ->jomama Dec 10, 2016 12:59 PM
My post is conjecture, obviously. The basis of my musings, as stated above, is the fact that the
establishment has tried to destroy Trump from the outset using all of their assets in his own
party, the msm, Hollyweird, intelligence and politics. A full retard attack is being perpetrated
against him as I type.
There is some merit to dividing the establishment, the Deep State, into two opposing sides.
One that lost power, priestige and funds backing Hillary and one that did not, which would make
Trump an alternative establishment candidate. But there is no proof that any establishment (MIC+Banking)
entity even likes Trump, let alone supports him. As for Israel, Hillary was their candidate of
choice, but their MO is they will always infiltrate and back both sides to ensure compliance.
blindfaith ->YHC-FTSE Dec 10, 2016 12:36 PM
Do not underestimate Trump. I will grant that some of these picks are concerning. However, think
in terms of business, AND government is a business from top to bottom. It has been run as a dog
and pony show for years and look where we are. To me, I think his picks are strating to look like
a very efficient team to get the government efficient again. That alone must make D.C. shake in
thier boots.
YHC-FTSE ->blindfaith Dec 10, 2016 1:08 PM
Underestimating Trump is the last thing I would do. I'm just trying to understand his motives
in my own clumsy way. Besides, he promised to "Drain the swamp", not run the swamp more efficiently.
ducksinarow Dec 10, 2016 12:04 PM
From a non political angle, this is a divorce in the making. Then democrats have been rejected
in totallity but instead of blaming themselves for not being good enough, they are blaming a third
party which is the Russians. They are now engaging the Republican Party in a custody battle for
the "children". There are lies flying around and the older children know exactly what is going
on and sadly the younger children are confused, bewildered, angry and getting angrier by the minute.
Soon Papa(Obama) will be leaving which is symbolic of the male father figure in the African American
community. The new Papa is a white guy who is going to change the narrative, the rules of engagement
and the financial picture. The ones who were the heroes in the Obama narrative are not going to
be heroes anymore. New heroes will be formed and revered and during this process some will die
for their beliefs.
Back to reality, Trump needs to cleanse the CIA of the ones who would sell our nation to the
highest bidder. If the CIA is not on the side of America the CIA should be abolished. In a world
where mercenaries are employed all over the world, bringing together a culturally mixed agency
does not make for a very honest agency. It makes for a bunch of self involved countries trying
to influence the power of individuals. The reason Castro was never taken down is because it was
not in the interest of the CIA to do so. That is why there were some pretty hilarious non-attempts
on Castro's life over the years. It is not in the best interest of the CIA that Trump be president.
It is in the best interest of America that Trump is our President.
brane pilot Dec 10, 2016 12:22 PM
Even the idea that people would rely on foreign governments for critical information during
an election indicates the bankruptcy of the corrupt US media establishment. So now they resort
to open sedition and defamation in the absence of factual information. The mainstream media in
the USA has become a Fifth Column against America, no different than the so-called 'social science'
departments on college campuses. Trump was America's last chance and we took it and no one is
going to take it away.
"... It appears that the globalists are scared of anything that resembles the truth that counters their incessant propaganda If there was ever a discovery process in a lawsuit against WAPO, I would imagine that all roads would lead to a Contelpro section of the CIA It's interesting that Wall Street on Parade has noted that Propornot has a double blind registration in New Mexico. ..."
"... Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. ..."
"... More and more it seems like USA, like the roman empire, needs barbarians at the gates to distract the plebs from internal structural problems. ..."
"... As long as Yeltsin allowed Wall Street to loot Russia of former soviet holdings, Russia was not "barbaric". Now that Putin has put a solid halt on said looting, Russia is again "barbarians" ..."
"... And by refusing to address the emails, other than to scream "Russian hackers," the corporate media were able to convince the Clinton cultists and other Third-Way believers that the information they contained was just another right-wing attack on The Anointed because (other than leftist, Russian-loving "fake news" sites), the right-wing media were the only ones paying it any attention. ..."
"... I am old enough to remember seeing in the news reel at my local theater in 1950 Joseph McCarthy holding up a piece of paper to the cameras and intoning in his inimitable droning voice, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 known members of the Communist Party who are working and shaping policy in the State Department." ..."
"... People's livelihoods and reputations were thereby smeared for life. Never did McCarthy back his claims with evidence, nor did he retract his scurrilous accusation. Now, tell me how what Jeff Bezos and co. are doing in this instance is in any significant way different from what McCarthy did to these people back in 1956. What finally put it squarely before the American public and finally earned McCarthy Congressional censure was when Boston attorney Joseph Welch asked McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" ..."
"... Here's the thing. Yes, RT is funded by the Russian government, and thus anything posted thereon needs to be considered with that in mind. Nevertheless, it is also where stories the corporates prefer to ignore are given attention. In other words, there is an irony that the Russians may, indeed, be trying to influence us, but if so, they appear to be doing it by subtly undermining the reliability of the corporate media. ..."
"... To put it another way, dismissing RT solely because of its funding source is no better than dismissing NC et al. as propaganda sites, and doing so is actually feeding the propaganda machine. After all, we don't know what percentage of the US media currently receives "grants" from US intelligence agencies, now, do we. ..."
"... In studying communications, there's a distinction between 'white' and 'black' propaganda. White propaganda is publishing truth that supports your cause. Black propaganda is, of course, slanderous lies. RT is white propaganda, so use it for the value it brings. ..."
"... Exactly. I'm a grown-up. I have a lot of practice reading critically and I'm quite capable of questioning sources and filtering bias. I don't need Jeff Bezos to protect me from Russkie BadThink. ..."
"... "does not itself vouch " You have to bear in mind this is not the Post talking, this is CIA CIA has blatantly used the Post as a their sockpuppet since they put Woodward in there to oust Nixon, and now they've got Bezos by the contractual balls. CIA has impunity in municipal statute and secret red tape so any answer you get from them means No fuck You. ..."
"... The NDAA legalized domestic propaganda in 2013 so when the public repudiated their chosen president Hillary Clinton, CIA immediately got to work work attacking Article 19. ..."
"... [M]aybe we should just lump them [WaPo] in with Breitbart and company. ..."
This is tantamount to an admission that not only did the Washington Post do no fact-checking,
but also that it does not consider fact-checking to be part of its job.
Another way to put it is to say that WaPoo is not in the business of investigation but instead
is in the business of regurgitation . WaPoo seems to think that reporting equals repeating.
We don't need people who repeat other people's words. We need reporters who are digging.
"This minimalist walk-back does not remedy the considerable damage [already] done to NC and
other sites." No, it certainly does not. Once the "defamatory cat" is out of the bag, you can't
exactly stuff the cat back in.
Proceed, young lady with your case. But as you move forward, do take measures to keep these
vampires from stealing your adaptive energies and health.
p.s. You know, this diminiishes WaPo to a mere "blog aggregator" when allows its "reporters"
such as Craig Timberg to merely "scrape and publish" posts from anonymous blogsites (not even
scraping from the laughable "gold standard" of truth on the internet: Wiki). These reporters aren't
writing, they are scraping. What a bunch of lazy fucks at WaPo!
And you know what I'd really like to do: kick this Craig Timberg character a new ass in a dark
alley. Yves, when you are done shredding WaPo and Timberg, I sincerely hope they won't be able
to sit down for a whole year.
p.s.s. that post (yd) about Wiki becoming the "gold standard" of 'fact-finding" and "truth"
on the internet was particularly disturbing. Even citations from academic journals (such as JAMA)
posted in Wiki are laden with flawed research suffering from poor design and methodology, draw
the wrong conclusions, reveal biases and conflicts of interest, show a lack of references etc.
Decades ago, there was a shift in much of the medical literature a shift from "evidence-based"
to "consensus-based." The internet appears to be moving in the same direction, using various tools
and methodologies that allow "consensus-based" opinions (valued by the certain parties that be)
to be shaped as "facts" and "truth." When in fact, those opinions are anything but a truth.
. a shift from "evidence-based" to "consensus-based."
Yes. That's what I see as behind the browser flagging extensions, as if facts are subject to
majority vote, which would make them opinions, not facts. If wapoo prints an editorial opinion
on the editorial page, that's one thing. If wapoo prints editorial opinion masquerading as fact
on the front page, that is a different matter.
Wapoo's arrogant reply, in the form of an editor's note, to NC's letter isn't a surprising
first move for them. I trust NC's atty has already thought many, many steps ahead.
"The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's
findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so."
You couldn't get a more weassely response. They admit they didn't fact check their sources,
they cowadly now hide behind the defence of not actully naming any of the sites, and then finally
try to play the "nothing to see here" defence of pretending the article didn't mean what it quite
clearly did mean when it was published.
Increasingly, challenging western govt output is seen as a form of rebellion. As Orwell said
. telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
One day I was listening to Bloomberg News on the car radio, when they aired a critical story
on a company where I had worked. The criticism was from a third party group. And then the next
news story began.
Stunned, I phoned the reporter and asked, "Where was the company's rebuttal, or refusal to
comment?"
He replied, "It was there, you just didn't hear it."
But I had listened with full attention, and it wasn't there. Maybe an editor had removed it
to shorten the clip.
This has been my experience with the MSM. They are always right. They make no mistakes. You
should believe them, not your lying eyes and ears.
"This has been my experience with the MSM. They are always right. They make no mistakes.
You should believe them, not your lying eyes and ears."
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
The Ministry of Truth hasn't, yet, been given the power to completely silence those of us who
don't stay within the confines of The Narrative. So their tactic is to portray us all as dangerous
disinformators like Emmanuel Goldstein.
In 1975, I went to the Soviet Union with a group of American tourists. At the time, I was working
as a volunteer for Ralph Nader. A few times, some of the people in our group had a chance to talk
to Soviet people in our hotels. The other Americans would give civics book explanations about
how the US government worked. Some of the Soviet people would question these explanations, saying
that they had heard from their government that the American government worked in a way that sounded
to me much more accurate and in line with the way Nader portrayed the US. Undemocratic regimes
are often fairly accurate in describing the faults of other governments, especially those of their
perceived enemies, while ignoring their own failings. I do not know exactly what Russian propaganda
the Washington Post is referring to, but I would not be surprised if various Russian sources simply
repeat the common criticisms of the toxic activities of the neoliberal establishment an establishment
of which the Washington Post has been a long-time supporter. Why go through all of the trouble
of fabricating stories when the reality is as damning as anything you could make up? So rather
than the US sources in question spouting Russian propaganda, the Russians might simply be repeating
the criticisms they are hearing from the US.
This is tantamount to an admission that not only did the Washington Post do no fact-checking,
but that it does not consider fact-checking to be part of its job.
Ah, the Ratings Agencies "opinions" defense. Blithely ignorant of their own legally and historically
protected positions. I suspect this is exactly the defense the WP will run with. Effectively they
will assert their constitutional right as propagandists, to broadcast whatever they please in
the national interest.
is a new, private sector-led initiative
I would say not entirely. True, large private corporations are behind a lot of this, but what
is at stake is their authority to speak for, and their connections to, the state and Deep State.
On a more emotional level, what is at stake is status. Because really that is all the big newspapers
have anymore. Social status. Do not underestimate this currency. It is probably the most precious
form of capital there is and the Post, et al, will fight with their fingernails to avoid losing
it. Things could get pretty nasty. Good luck and give the bastards hell.
Long, long time, b/c of their policies. I figure my opinion doesn't count, my vote doesn't
count, but by golly, I will make every dollar I spend count. I buy locally when possible (ideally
both locally made/grown and locally-owned retail, although there is at least one local company
I will not patronize, for policy reasons) and have found alternate sources for things I can't
get around here, eg. Powell's for books and
Lehman's for tools and kitchen stuff. As a last resort I will comparison shop on Amazon and
then ask my local supplier to order the thing in for me (as I did with my water heater). Not one
nickel of mine will go to WaPo or Amazon. And I have told rellies, pls no Amazon gifts for our
household.
Long before the current series of events happened, there were excellent reasons to avoid buying
from Amazon.com. The horrific working conditions in Amazon.com warehouses should be enough to
prevent any person from buying from the company. I suppose many people still aren't aware of how
bad it is, so here's an example article:
As much as I would love to "boycott Amazon," it's not possible for several reasons. First,
being old and crippled, I can't run out to the nearest Target to buy stuff, and I definitely don't
have time or physical capacity to hop all over town trying to find some specialty item that doesn't
sell enough for most bricks-and-mortar retailers to carry. I do buy direct when it's possible,
but the fact of life is there's stuff you can only find on Amazon.
Second, I own and operate a small digitally-based book publishing company, and Amazon is our
major source of revenue. For me, boycotting Amazon would mean pulling my authors' work from distribution
there, which isn't an option. Likewise, consider Kindle owners with extensive libraries.
Frankly, I consider these calls to boycott some huge corporation the kind of symbolic action
that allows people to feel good about themselves while avoiding doing anything actually effective.
Like writing/emailing/phoning the editorial board of the local news media should they be broadcasting/publishing
this rubbish-preferably all three and multiple times. Given that many are connected to the same
major corporations as the Big Media, that strikes me as what really needs to be done.
After all, WaPo isn't doing this in an echo chamber. Their fiction was picked up by all the
major players and more than a few of the minor. The only way to counter public discourse is publicly.
On another subject-Yves and Lambert, if you'd like someone to run over your articles pre-publication
for a quick copyedit, you know where to find me. It's one of the non-monetary things I can donate.
Agree on symbolic action. I do buy from Amazon and either go to antiwar.com first (a mixed
site, but one I want to see endure) and click so they get a commission or go to smile.amazon.com
so my favorite small charity gets it.
Buying is NOT voting. I'm a citizen and not mainly just a consumer. Not buying from amazon
would hurt me more than them (especially as I like buying obscure second-hand books). There are
much better things I can do to be politically effective, including letters to the editor and contributions.
I do buy by preference from a third-party that doesn't distribute from Amazon warehouses if
the price is close. And there are many things I do choose to get locally or from others. But I
buy a heck of a lot from them especially books.
There should be a union of sorts, among those defamed. Join forces with some other reputable
smallish websites and create a consortium that pools resources to fight this sort of thing going
forward.
I think you should take the strongest, most aggressive stance possible given the huge number
of very important issues at stake. I will continue to support naked capitalism any way that I
can.
Yves, have you contacted Bill Moyers? He initially referred to the Post article without adequate
critical comment. He could and should remedy this. His voice would carry weight with the book
bag-toting NPR folks, who will be among the last to "doubt" the Post.
Excellent suggestion. I found NC when Bill Moyers recommended it on his old tv show when he
interviewed Yves and it has continued to open my eyes big time and I haven't been the same since.
Whenever I encounter a NYTimesbot or a BostonGlobebot or a Wapoobot or NPRbot (Blindly quoting
believers) I tell them I don't have time for MSM anymore after Bill Moyers recommended this incredibly
informative site and I tell them all about NC. I am so grateful for NC and Yves and Lambert and
all the other contributors for what you all do. I would be devastated if this horror damages you
(us) all. And Net Neutrality in general Trump will go after it. WaPoo (love that) should be
taken way out to the woodshed, shamed, and publicized for how awful they (and so many others in
the MSM) have become. I will help in any way I can. And please stay well Yves and Lambert.
I found NC through Bill Moyers as well. Since he retired, i rarely look at the website and
never the FC page anymore since the content significantly decreased in quality and originality
imo after he retired. i know his name is still attached to the website and he still occasionally
submits articles, but i wonder how much oversight and content involvement he has with the operation
these days.
That should read, "since he retired from the tv show Moyers & Co and it went off the air".
The website still lists Bill Moyers as the managing editor. But the quality of the website noticeably
changed after the show left PBS in i think 2015.
It appears that the globalists are scared of anything that resembles the truth that counters
their incessant propaganda If there was ever a discovery process in a lawsuit against WAPO, I
would imagine that all roads would lead to a Contelpro section of the CIA It's interesting that
Wall Street on Parade has noted that Propornot has a double blind registration in New Mexico.
A propaganda holding company! This is allowed by the Whappo? It's a felony masquerading as
a farce and they can't get out of this like little Judy Miller pretending to be dumb. Judy Miller
is very sophisticated and so is the Whappo. Journalism isn't journalism if it does this sleazy
stuff. Since when does a newspaper "disclaim" its own news? It's totally outrageous. And the nerve
to say that PropOrNot insists on being anonymous. PropOrNot might as well be the Whappo itself.
Only sleazy purveyors of crap disclaim it. This is just asking for satire. Whappo deserves to
be ridiculed into oblivion.
just a quick check on the net produced a a site: dab-oracl.com and an atty named Donald Burleson
stating that New Mexico is one of 17 states that enforce criminal libel and that you can file
to lift the veil on anonymity for defamation and have the perp arrested cool
It's in Santa Fe and the U of Magonia has a channeling portal there. The channeling portal
connects to alternate universes and higher order dimensions and all sorts of weird and unusual
stuff passes thru the portal. It's where craazyman finds out about lots of stuff and he may have
bumped(if that's right word) into these other channelers?
I'm 56, I was a 9 buck an hour cook in Boston in 1988 when Dukakis came out of Labor Day with
a 17 point lead.
The campaign wizards of Bush Senior came up some kind of 'Dukakis hates America ' baloney,
because of some other baloney about The Flag!! or The Pledge!!! For days, GWB Sr. came out in
front of a bunch of flags & said the Pledge, and the craven, sycophantic, grovelling media of
the day dutifully reported
"In order to show '__Dukakis hates America___' Vice President Bush said the pledge of allegiance."
Anyone from that era remember all the liberal cloak rending and finger waving and furrowed
brows? Anyone remember that Fairness Doctrine thing??? Seriously having some contract mouth
piece of the WAPO question NC is a badge of honor.
rmm.
But then I sigh; and, with a piece of scripture,
Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
And thus I clothe my naked villany
With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.
Dukakis' loss was due to his weak response to a racist smear campaign that assigned him personal
responsibility for every poor decision made by the Massachusetts penal system.
His sin was failing to fight back with sufficient vigor. It's a good choice of anecdote for
this comments thread however. An object lesson if you will.
The Washington Post has responded, from the perspective of their own interests, in literally
the worst way possible.
They have essentially gone on record as admitting that publish articles that are defamatory
per se in a reckless manner, using a reckless (or non-existent) fact-checking and vetting process.
It's really unbelievable, and many of us in the legal community are scratching our heads, now,
wondering from whom The Washington Post is soliciting legal advice.
They wouldn't have deigned to respond at all if they weren't nervous about our attorney. But
I agree, this response is incredibly lame and not helpful to them from a legal or reputational
standpoint. They seem to think if they make a minimal gesture, NC and the other wronged sites
won't proceed. Bad assumption.
My grandfather was a political refugee. He escaped Bulgaria after being jailed one too many
times for having the audacity to disagree with the communist elites and its media organs, and
to do so in public. What I see happening here in the US, with dissent on the verge of being suppressed
or even criminalized, deeply concerns me because it reminds me of those bad old times. I respect
you guys and your willingness to stand up to power, in ways I can not adequately express. Thank
you.
Craig Timberg may be another example of the "son of more successful father" phenomenon who
in attempting to exceed their fathers, do great damage to others (other examples: G.W. Bush, Bill
Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, John McCain ).
" He was nearly 30 years old, borderline ancient for a beginning daily newspaper reporter.
Unlike other Capital staffers, he was a Naval Academy graduate with a master's degree in journalism,
and he was a Vietnam war combat veteran. And he could not type."
"I first noticed Bob's reporting talents from his incisive articles on a legal challenge to
compulsory chapel attendance at the U.S. service academies, filed by six Annapolis midshipmen
and a West Point cadet."
"The highlight of Bob's reporting was an interview with celebrated evangelist Billy Graham,
who shockingly characterized the students' lawsuit as a being "part of a planned attack against
all chaplains, to force them completely out of all services," and further suggested that the young
men were Communist dupes. Though Bob knew now that he had a good story, he still pressed on, asking
Graham if an atheist can become a good naval officer. "I can't comment on that," the preacher
answered."
So Timberg's father questioned a prominent person who was alleging "Communist dupes" against
military chaplains.
But his son does little vetting of the shadowy group PropOrNot as he goes for HIS story alleging
"Russian propagandists".
It may be too late for the son to learn from the father's example.
Good story. The son as a pale shadow of the father is, as you say, not an uncommon thing. Craig,
in this current example, doesn't seem to understand even the most basic, fundamental principles
of journalistic ethics or professional conduct. It's strange someone in the profession that long
could survive lacking that. Or maybe once you get on with a big name paper with a billionaire
owner, sucking up to the establishment is a get out of jail free card when it comes to ethics
and professional accountability.
I stopped ordering from Amazon two years ago after reading the stories about labor conditions
for warehouse employees. It is nothing more than brutal slave labor.
I used to at least read the headlines in the NYT and WaPo. Now I can not even stomach them.
So, the WaPo now admits that "journalism" is dead and stenography is the only purpose
their "platform" exists for.
The quaint institution of "journalism" existed to sort "fact" from "opinion" and made the important
distinction between the two. Opinions are like belly-buttons and assholes, everybody has one.
Facts are more difficult to discern, but are immutable and objective. As attributed to the late
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
"
This is the death of the First Amendment - The ScAmazon model of purporting to be a "marketplace"
but refusing to vouch for the quality, safety, or authenticity of anything that they loudly and
slickly shill to profit from the work of others. It is disgusting, hollow, and amoral. It must
be brought to heel.
I suspect the MSM have always seen their ability to shape elections as their true "ring of
power." As you say this has been going on for a long timecertainly pre-internet. The fact that
Trump won despite their best efforts has likely shaken big media to the core. Which doesn't mean
Trump's election was a good thing or a bad thing but simply that they didn't get to pick.
Television will always be the most important medium when it comes to politics but the print
media now see their role as "influencers" under threat from the web. And given their financial
problems this may be the final existential threat. It's likely the Post editors knew perfectly
well what they were doing and how shoddy that story was. It was a shot across the bow.
Yves: What is going on here is deeply ingrained. We live in a country in which everyone's opinions
are now canonical, as we see with wonder about the candidate for the head of the EPA. Pruitt's
opinion counteracts years of research, because lawyers know all about science.
I was reminded of how ingrained these "narratives" are when I read the lead in the Talk of
the Town in the most recent New Yorker: Jeffrey Toobin on voting. He did a drive-by diagnosis
of Jill Stein as a narcissist. (But, but, but the New Yorker already declared Trump a narcissist.)
Then, in a couple of very curious sentences, he tries to accuse the Russians of tampering with
the U.S. election campaign while admitting it unlikely that foreigners hacked the vote count.
So you have two or three or four fake-news pieces strung together so as to assert power. That's
the long and the short of it. Just as Pruitt is an ignoramus about science, so Toobin as an ignoramus
about psychology. As Lambert often writes: Agnotology. I'd add: Agnotology to maintain the structures
of power.
We have been in this intellectual winter for a while: Liberals in denial, peddling psychobabble.
Rightwingers in denial, peddling resentment.
At the end of the 70s, we came to the US, believing western media to be the epitome of honesty
and truth (the belief itself based on plentiful pro-western propaganda, which we consumed unquestioningly).
The highly misleading anti-Soviet propaganda in the US at that time was a bit of a shock. Not
so much its existence, but its vicious nature. And the lies about "Russians are coming." Nothing
much has changed the west still dislikes Russia, and will do all it can to discredit the country
(just watch out for the starting effort to ruin the 2018 futbal (soccer) games in Russia anti-Sochi
hysteria was just a preview). The wapoo stunt may be crude, but it is not a demonstration of incompetence.
It does seem to be a part of concerted efforts to limit the free flow of information on the Internet.
As the "narrative" has gotten away from powers that be, a new way to censor information is needed.
Even Merkel said she'd want to address "fake news." Has everybodu forgotten operation Mockingbird
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
)? Nothing new under the sun but the stakes are much higher now, as the west runs out of
options to maintain supremacy.
More and more it seems like USA, like the roman empire, needs barbarians at the gates to
distract the plebs from internal structural problems.
As long as Yeltsin allowed Wall Street to loot Russia of former soviet holdings, Russia
was not "barbaric". Now that Putin has put a solid halt on said looting, Russia is again "barbarians"
Want to have some fun? Next time someone starts ranting about "the Russians hacked our election,"
try tossing out "Well, we messed with theirs, so it seems only fair."
Post editorial/management probably doesn't have strong opinions - or any opinions - of the
sites impugned by PropOrNot, including Naked Capitalism, since it's unlikely these corporate drones
possess enough intellectual curiosity to actually look at them.
The problem is confirmation bias (in this case, offering an acceptable explanation for why
WaPo's Chosen Liberal lost the election, without having to look in the mirror) and shoddy careerist
journalism generally, which works so well for so many, and which can't be litigated away.
Banish Timberg, and you might as well put WaPO out of business.
I recall seeing somewhere in the initial flurry of tweets and comments on the subject that
someone had contacted Wapo and received a response from the editor or some such stating that "multiple
contacts" were made to PorNot for some sort of purpose, perhaps verification, fact checking, or
what ever it is newspapers do before breathlessly getting out the bold typeface and running a
"story". Wish I could find it again. But now it seems that was fake news.
The timing and placement of the "clarification" is rich. 14 days later slip in an "editor's
comment" buried in the old news pile. Your pet parrot wouldn't even notice.
Timburg is obviously another tool like Judith Miller. His "editors" knew full well the story
was bullshit "can't vouch for the validity" (because we can't be bothered to check our sources)
and ran it anyway. So there was/is an agenda. And the media wonder why they are in such low
regard.
Yves, in your apology post with your attorney's letter, you stated this
I also hope, particularly for those of you who don't regularly visit Naked Capitalism,
that you'll check out our related pieces that give more color to how the fact the Washington
Post was taken for a ride by inept propagandists
My first reaction to this was "presumes facts not in evidence"
I don't believe the Post was taken in by anyone. They wanted to have a particular piece written
and they did. Why in the world would they back down now?
You're going to need more fundraisers because I'm guessing they'll be dragging this out. If
they can't beat you with fake news then they will drain your resources with a long-drawn out legal
process. Yes, I'm very cynical. Watched one of the bloggers I follow spend around $150,000 defending
themselves from a defamation case that never went to trail. The blogger was also a lawyer so could
help with her defense, had discounted legal assistance from an first amendment expert and an additional
attorney. They had a year of depositions with constant delays. $150,000 is not petty cash.
I know the circumstances are not the same but the Post has deep pockets. If they want to drain
NC and other independent news sources, they have the resources to go the distance.
Also please stop giving the newspapers excuses. The entire industry is pretty much consolidated.
I don't think they very much care about whether or not a newspaper makes money after they've leveraged
it with so much debt in order to purchase it in the first place. Or used their billions to simply
buy it. Either way that would seem to indicate that's about the write-off and controlling the
"narrative."
As an added bonus get rid of your workers due to "costs." Further narrowing the acceptable
narrative within the newsroom. Pretty soon, the entire industry is gutted just like other industries
in this country. (I'd argue that's most of the way done except for independent media.) That's
quite purposeful and just like other industries, it never had to be that way, even with the rise
of the Internet and "things" like Google ads and Facebook.
Stop giving them so much of the benefit of the doubt. They are engaged in a class war.
Even if somewhere down the line they were to apologize and give you a prominent byline, the
damage is already done with a good portion of their readership. Which was entirely the point.
" I don't believe the Post was taken in by anyone. "
I may wholeheartedly agree with you but there are good reasons for NC to be circumspect and
initially offer Wapoo the option of backing away and retracting gracefully; or as gracefully as
possible in this situation.
Yes, I'm in for the long haul wrt donations. Bernie's campaign showed the power of small donations.
You've put your finger on the "stupid, crazy, or evil" question.
Our esteemed hostess has chosen stupid, for reasons that seem good and sufficient. Crazy would
be apparent from past behavior, and we of the tinfoil hat legions can make a good case for evil
from the interests of the actors. But if nothing else, stupid is easily proved.
I think the main reason many here are giving the benefit of the doubt to WaPo is that it was
done so ineptly. The article reeks of carelessness and non-existent fact-checking and poor (or
non-existent) editorial overview. If it was part of a deliberate plot to smear it should have
been better written and they would have done a better job in covering themselves legally. Most
recent high profile libel claims such as the Rolling Stones college rape hoax story originated
from a mix of confirmation bias and incompetence, not (so far as we know) from a deliberate malign
plot.
Having said that, their refusal to come straight out and apologise when presented with the
facts is just digging themselves a deeper hole. I've no doubt the NC crew will go all the way
with this, I hope it proves deeply embarrassing for the WaPo, they are destroying their own reputation
and its entirely their fault.
I guess, on one level, it's intersting that the PTB saw the websites on the list as having
that much power and influence to sway the election to Trump due to telling the truth, frankly.
The truth clearly has no place in the US conversation anymore.
At any rate, most of here saw our main, favored websites on that McCarthyite witch hunt list
and thought: WOW. So we told the truth about Clinton and various other issues with this election,
and now we must be silenced.
Of course, it's pretty odd given the DNC hacked emails were really very revealing of many shady
(to say the least) things, and I've seen those emails quoted quite a bit by many rightwing sources.
And that info was, in fact, disseminated broadly to conservative voters. And I feel that those
emails, possibly along with Comey's last minute "reveal," probably swayed some still-on-the-fence
voters to either not vote for POTUS at all or to vote for Trump.
Frankly, it's risable in the extreme that this country has been drowning in rightwingnut propaganda
for the past 40+ years (or longer), and that's really what the rise of Trump is all about. As
opposed to others here, I frankly despise Trump and all he stands for, but I give him props where
due. He's kind of stupid but has this certain rat cunning about reading the moment and grabbing
it for his purposes. He saw that those who had lost the most in this country were ripe for the
plucking, and he went about using them for his own greedy means accordingly.
Railing against a handful of truth-telling lefty-ish blogs is amazing on one level. I doubt
that, even in the aggragate, many voters were swayed by the information provided. I think most
who read these blogs are already determined what we'll do, but we come to these sites for a breath
of fresh air, as it were.
That, for me, is what makes this attack so chilling. The last few small voices of reason and
sanity? And they have to be silenced? Brrrrrr . that's bitterly cold.
Keep up the good fight, Yves and friends. This is gonna be tough row to hoe, but I'm in it
to win it.
And by refusing to address the emails, other than to scream "Russian hackers," the corporate
media were able to convince the Clinton cultists and other Third-Way believers that the information
they contained was just another right-wing attack on The Anointed because (other than leftist,
Russian-loving "fake news" sites), the right-wing media were the only ones paying it any attention.
You have to give credit where it's due-they have had decades to perfect their method, and it
is very hard to counter it.
silicon valley does not know the meaning of trust. they have extracted it from every situation
they can, destroying everything they touch, without realizing what they have unleashed. this will
eventually be learned by all, the hard way.
I am old enough to remember seeing in the news reel at my local theater in 1950 Joseph
McCarthy holding up a piece of paper to the cameras and intoning in his inimitable droning voice,
"I have here in my hand a list of 205 known members of the Communist Party who are working and
shaping policy in the State Department."
People's livelihoods and reputations were thereby smeared for life. Never did McCarthy
back his claims with evidence, nor did he retract his scurrilous accusation. Now, tell me how
what Jeff Bezos and co. are doing in this instance is in any significant way different from what
McCarthy did to these people back in 1956. What finally put it squarely before the American public
and finally earned McCarthy Congressional censure was when Boston attorney Joseph Welch asked
McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"
Yikes,Yves! What a lame response from them. We all need to keep up the pressure, by any means.
This is one of those MSM errors that they hope will just go away, as evidenced by their hand waving
dismissal. We can't let it! I think letters to the editor-an avalanche- might do a world of good.
Murtaza HussainVerified account Dec 5
@MazMHussain
2003: Rifle-toting Americans barge into Iraq after reading viral Fake News story about weapons
of mass destruction.
------------------------------
This fake news story ranks up there with the rifle toting Americans that barge into Viet Nam after
the Fake News story about a US Navy warship that was attacked by the North Viet Namese Naval forces
in the Gulf of Tonkin.
PolitiFact is running a poll for "Lie of the Year"
here . There's a line for write in votes. I wrote in the Post's "Russian Propaganda " story.
I suggest you can do the same.
A true fake news refusal to retract. Extraordinary that WaPo's editors also claim "not to vouch"
for the veracity of whether or not RT.com is a "conduit for Russian propaganda". Really? RT is
sponsored by the Russian state, how could it not be such a "conduit"? WaPo has all but admitted
that it will print all the fake news it chooses to print. This reply is actually worse than the
original offense. Pure confection of arrogance and cowardice as only libertarians can produce.
But of course it doesn't matter if every last one of the news sources mentioned in the WaPo
article were in fact such conduits. The issue is the neo-Cold war, neo-McCarthyite campaign launched
over the last 2 years whose center of gravity lies clearly in the Clinton liberal Democrat camp.
We can only imagine how the campaign would conduct itself if Clinton had won the Presidency.
It was predictable they would come after the Left, only now they come on with less swag, but with
a pathetic sore loser grudge. A perusal of the Liberal sphere on HuffnPuff, Alternet, Salon and
such shows these still lost in a self-induced hysterical psychosis.
Right NOW is the time to for leftists and progressives to draw a clear line, and distance,
from American Liberalism and its blame the victim rhetoric.
Here's the thing. Yes, RT is funded by the Russian government, and thus anything posted
thereon needs to be considered with that in mind. Nevertheless, it is also where stories the corporates
prefer to ignore are given attention. In other words, there is an irony that the Russians may,
indeed, be trying to influence us, but if so, they appear to be doing it by subtly undermining
the reliability of the corporate media.
To put it another way, dismissing RT solely because of its funding source is no better
than dismissing NC et al. as propaganda sites, and doing so is actually feeding the propaganda
machine. After all, we don't know what percentage of the US media currently receives "grants"
from US intelligence agencies, now, do we.
In studying communications, there's a distinction between 'white' and 'black' propaganda.
White propaganda is publishing truth that supports your cause. Black propaganda is, of course,
slanderous lies. RT is white propaganda, so use it for the value it brings.
Exactly. I'm a grown-up. I have a lot of practice reading critically and I'm quite capable
of questioning sources and filtering bias. I don't need Jeff Bezos to protect me from Russkie
BadThink.
There's a sense in which that's true, of course. But it is a useful characterization? Is there
even any point to such a broad statement about a media outlet, other than to discredit work that
can't be discredited on more direct grounds?
State sponsorship of media organizations is not all that unusual. The BBC is primarily funded
by a tax levied on any British household that uses a television to receive a broadcast signal,
for example. Is the WaPo in the habit of describing the BBC as a "conduit for British propaganda"?
Am I acting as a useful idiot for the UK government every time I rehash an old Monty Python joke?
"does not itself vouch " You have to bear in mind this is not the Post talking, this is
CIA CIA has blatantly used the Post as a
their sockpuppet
since they put Woodward in there to oust Nixon, and now they've got Bezos by the contractual
balls. CIA has impunity in municipal statute and secret red tape so any answer you get from them
means No fuck You.
The NDAA legalized domestic propaganda in 2013 so when the public repudiated their chosen
president Hillary Clinton, CIA immediately got to work work attacking Article 19. CIA is
panicking because Hillary was going to get them the war they need to preserve CIA impunity for
the crime against humanity of systematic and widespread torture and murder in their global gulag
of secret death camps.
The ICC's investigation of US crimes against humanity has reached the critical point of referral
to the pre-trial chamber . The
ICC is under intense pressure from Russia and the global south to prove it's not afraid of US
criminals. Italian courts have got torturer Sabrina de Souza, and they're going to use her to
roll up the command chain. One way or another it's going to be open season on CIA torture cowards,
in universal jurisdiction with no statute of limitations. This is a far graver threat to CIA than
the family jewels. The international community is investigating CIA crimes, not avuncular Jim
Schlesinger or some gelded congressional committee. Like Francis Boyle says, the US government
is a criminal enterprise. And since COG was imposed it's got one branch, CIA
That's the background here. You're the Op in Red Harvest. Poisonville's the USA.
May I suggest that this site no longer link to The Wapoo for stories that are available elsewhere.
I personally would prefer to not go to their site at all, but they seem to make up a lot of the
links here.
I understand that sometimes this will be unavoidable, as the Wapoo is the only one doing a particular
story, but in cases where the story is carried at other sites, can you please link to those other
sites instead?
I live in New Zealand and start every day with NC because WaPo and it's like runs an agenda.
We all know that. I feel for you Yves but the site's strength is bringing together all those speaking
truth to power. The courts won't care about that and that route can drain you personally and financially.
Stay strong and play to your strengths. You have lots of support perhaps more than you know.
The Second Phase of the Propaganda Fake News War: Economic Strangulation. What Comes Next?
by BAR editor and columnist Dr. Marsha Adebayo
"The public has determined that the corporate media is actually the purveyor of "fake news"
and turned to media organizations, such as BAR, Truthout and other outlets for information."
So, since the W.P. won't bear responsibility for what they publish, maybe we should just lump
them in with Breitbart and company. Just out of curiosity, did W.P. contact N.C. for comment before
they tried to smear your (and, by extension, our) reputation?
It's libel per se and an avalanche of lawsuits directed at PropOrNot and WaPo should be pretty
effective. Because WaPo did not retract there is no defense.
From a legal point of view, I wonder how the Executive Editor's (Marty Baron) tweeting of the
article plays against the assertion that "The Post does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's
findings". Is that a case where he was speaking (tweeting) his own opinion, and not necessarily
that of his employer?
So if the WaPo doesn't consider validity checking of sources to be part of its job, then that
raises the obvious question in this case: WHY the (insert expletive of your choice) did they take
this site with anonymous authors, sweeping allegations and no evidence of any kind, and choose
to make a featured story out of it? There are hundreds or thousands of other sites just like it
out there. Why PropOrNot, and not any of the others?
In other words, if (as they claim) the story boils down to "some anonymous people on the Internet
made some unsubstantiated claims which may or may not be accurate", why did they decide it was
newsworthy at all, let alone worthy of the kind of prominence they gave it?
They might actually get off the hook for libel on the grounds that the lack of fairness and
impartiality wasn't malicious intent but part of their core values.
Am I the only one who remembered an "Andrew Watts" commenting on NC? And wasn't Aug 21 the
date ProporCrap started? And isn't the exchange between 'Andrew Watts' and 'timbers' of interest
given the WaPo reporter's name is Timberg?
How hard would it be, really, for two or three people with some know-how to engage in discussion,
get replies from comments, trace/track those people. Even one person hacked (and I'm virtually
certain I was this summer) could provide a large number of sites visited or 'linked'.
And it seems to me as well I sent a story to Lambert (and I wrote to Lambert something like
"You mean this isn't real?") that I took to be a real WaPo story re a major wrinkle in the Clinton
scandals that was part of a story link I got from Global Research, a story which also had a paragraph
referenced from Breibart which I didn't notice until my comment wasn't posted, so I went back
and looked. I assumed the comment was rejected due to the Breibart (sp?) reference. But what if
WaPo/Watts were fishing at NC and saw my follow-up comment to Lambert with only the WaPo link
and my question (assuming it was posted, which I do not remember)?
I wonder if Snopes has asked to be removed from PropOrNot's list of "related projects."
I contacted them to find out if they were going to ask themselves to be removed from that list,
but I have not heard back from them. I guess we'll find out something about their reputability.
"... One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report. ..."
"... The piece's description of some sharers of bogus news as "useful idiots" could " theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline ," Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune. ..."
"... But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker , its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote "the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labeled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier." ..."
"... Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections? ..."
In the latest example why the "mainstream media" is facing a historic crisis of confidence among
its readership, facing unprecedented blowback following Craig Timberg November 24 Washington Post
story "
Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say ", on Wednesday
a lengthy editor's note appeared on top of the original article in which the editor not only distances
the WaPo from the "experts" quoted in the original article whose "work" served as the basis for the
entire article (and which became the most read WaPo story the day it was published) but also admits
the Post could not " vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's finding regarding any individual media
outlet", in effect admitting the entire story may have been, drumroll "fake news" and conceding the
Bezos-owned publication may have engaged in defamation by smearing numerous websites - Zero Hedge
included - with patently false and unsubstantiated allegations.
It was the closest the Washington Post would come to formally retracting the story, which has
now been thoroughly discredited not only by outside commentators, but by its own editor.
Editor's Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four
sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine
American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity,
which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly
published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included
on PropOrNot's list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged
the group's methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not
itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor
did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post's story, PropOrNot has removed
some sites from its list.
As The
Washingtonian notes , the implicit concession follows intense and rising criticism of the article
over the past two weeks. It was "
rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations, " Intercept reporters Glenn Greenwald
and Ben Norton wrote, noting that PropOrNot, one of the groups whose research was cited in Timberg's
piece, "anonymous cowards." One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge
Report.
But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen
wrote for the New Yorker , its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda
- ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote
"the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labeled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious
groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier."
Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question
remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared
hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake
news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the
elections?
The authors seems to miss the key observation: this is a sign of the crisis of neoliberal propaganda
model, which gave rise to Internet rumor mill. Rumor s (aka improvised news) became a prominent news
source if and only if official channels of information are not viewed as trustworthy. And blacklisting
alternative news sites does not help to return the trust. When it is gone it is gone. The same situation
in the past happened in Brezhnev's USSR. People just stopped to trust official newspapers and turned
to propaganda sites of Western =government such as BBC and voice of America for news. Soviet authorities
tried to jam them, but this did not stop Soviet people from trying to listen to then at nights, trying
to find frequencies that were not jammed.
Notable quotes:
"... Basically, everyone who isn't comfortably within the centrist Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush spectrum is guilty. On its Twitter account, the group announced a new "plugin" that automatically alerts the user that a visited website has been designated by the group to be a Russian propaganda outlet. ..."
"... The group commits outright defamation by slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda tools of the Kremlin. ..."
"... a big part of the group's definition for "Russian propaganda outlet" is criticizing U.S. foreign policy ..."
"... In sum: They're not McCarthyite; perish the thought. They just want multiple U.S. media outlets investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia. ..."
"... PropOrNot is by no means a neutral observer. It actively calls on Congress and the White House to work "with our European allies to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT financial transaction system, effective immediately and lasting for at least one year, as an appropriate response to Russian manipulation of the election." ..."
"... In other words, this blacklisting group of anonymous cowards - putative experts in the pages of the Washington Post - is actively pushing for Western governments to take punitive measures against the Russian government and is speaking and smearing from an extreme ideological framework that the Post concealed from its readers. ..."
"... The Post itself - now posing as a warrior against "fake news" - published an article in September that treated with great seriousness the claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 Day because she was poisoned by Putin. ..."
"... Indeed, what happened here is the essence of fake news. The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth that reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War. ..."
"... So those who saw tweets and Facebook posts promoting this Post story instantly clicked and shared and promoted the story without an iota of critical thought or examination of whether the claims were true, because they wanted the claims to be true. That behavior included countless journalists. ..."
One of the core functions of PropOrNot appears to be its compilation of a lengthy blacklist of
news and political websites that it smears as peddlers of "Russian propaganda." Included on this
blacklist of supposed propaganda outlets are prominent independent left-wing news sites such as Truthout,
Naked Capitalism, Black Agenda Report, Consortium News, and Truthdig.
Also included are popular libertarian hubs such as Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com, and the Ron Paul Institute,
along with the hugely influential right-wing website the Drudge Report and the publishing site WikiLeaks.
Far-right, virulently anti-Muslim blogs such as Bare Naked Islam are likewise dubbed Kremlin mouthpieces.
Basically, everyone who isn't comfortably within the centrist Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush spectrum
is guilty. On its Twitter account, the group announced a new "plugin" that automatically alerts the
user that a visited website has been designated by the group to be a Russian propaganda outlet.
... ... ...
The group commits outright defamation by slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda
tools of the Kremlin.
The group eschews alternative media outlets like these and instead recommends that readers rely
solely on establishment-friendly publications like NPR, the BBC, the New York Times, the Wall Street
Journal, the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, and VICE. That is becausea big part of
the group's definition for "Russian propaganda outlet" is criticizing U.S. foreign policy.
... ... ...
While blacklisting left-wing and libertarian journalists, PropOrNot also denies being McCarthyite.
Yet it simultaneously calls for the U.S. government to use the FBI and DOJ to carry out "formal investigations"
of these accused websites, "because the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian
oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business." The shadowy group even goes so far
as to claim that people involved in the blacklisted websites may "have violated the Espionage Act,
the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and other related laws."
In sum: They're not McCarthyite; perish the thought. They just want multiple U.S. media outlets
investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia.
... ... ...
PropOrNot is by no means a neutral observer. It actively calls on Congress and the White House
to work "with our European allies to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT financial transaction system,
effective immediately and lasting for at least one year, as an appropriate response to Russian manipulation
of the election."
In other words, this blacklisting group of anonymous cowards - putative experts in the pages
of the Washington Post - is actively pushing for Western governments to take punitive measures against
the Russian government and is speaking and smearing from an extreme ideological framework that the
Post concealed from its readers.
... ... ...
The Post itself - now posing as a warrior against "fake news" - published an article in September
that treated with great seriousness the claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 Day because
she was poisoned by Putin. And that's to say nothing of the paper's disgraceful history of convincing
Americans that Saddam was building non-existent nuclear weapons and had cultivated a vibrant alliance
with al Qaeda. As is so often the case, those who mostly loudly warn of "fake news" from others are
themselves the most aggressive disseminators of it.
Indeed, what happened here is the essence of fake news. The Post story served the agendas
of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those
who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled,
in contrast to the objective truth that reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a
resurrection of the Cold War.
So those who saw tweets and Facebook posts promoting this Post story instantly clicked and
shared and promoted the story without an iota of critical thought or examination of whether the claims
were true, because they wanted the claims to be true. That behavior included countless journalists.
"... When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship. ..."
"... Many still wonder if the planet indeed slips towards a new Cold War. Despite that there is plenty of evidence that this is, unfortunately, already a fact, another incident came to verify this situation. ..."
"... The Western neoliberal establishment is exposed, revealing its real agenda: to challenge the alternative bloc driven by the Sino-Russian alliance. The 'democratic' Europe proceeded in a similar, unprecedented move recently. As reported by RT: "In a completely bonkers move this week, the EU Parliament approved a resolution to counter "Russian propaganda" and the "intrusion of Russian media" into the EU. The resolution was adopted with 304 MEPs voting in favor, 179 MEPs voting against it and 208 abstaining. The most bizarre part, however, is that the resolution lumped Russian media in with Islamist propaganda of the kind spread by terror groups like the so-called Islamic State. Thus Russian media is put on the same level with videos of ISIS beheadings and incitements to mass murder." ..."
"... In Cold War 2.0, the Western neoliberal establishment is forced to create the respective McCarthyism. Therefore, the new dogma has changed accordingly. It doesn't matter if an alternative medium provides a different view, away from the mainstream media propaganda. It doesn't matter if the Whistleblowers are telling the truth about the US dirty wars and mass surveillance of ordinary citizens. As long as the US empire and its allies are exposed by all these elements outside their Matrix control, these elements help Russia, therefore, they are doing 'Russian propaganda'. It's as simple as that. ..."
"... When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship. ..."
Key insight:
When the narratives will become
completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy
will become an open, brutal dictatorship.
When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest
minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.
Many still wonder if the planet indeed slips towards a new Cold War. Despite that there is plenty
of evidence that this is, unfortunately, already a fact, another incident came to verify this situation.
The blacklist created by PropOrNot and provided to Washington Post, containing more than 200 websites
that are supposedly doing 'Russian propaganda', marks the start of a new McCarthyism era and verifies
beyond doubt the fact that we have indeed entered the Cold War 2.0.
Seeing that it's losing the battle of information, the establishment simply proceeded in one more
clumsy move that will only accelerate developments against it.
It really sounds like a joke to accuse anyone who opposes the US dirty wars and interventions
that brought so much chaos and distraction, for doing 'Russian propaganda', when you are the one
who supported and justified these wars through the most offensive propaganda, for decades.
Someone has to tell the mainstream media parrots that their dirty tricks don't work anymore. According
to a Gallup latest report, "Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news
fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32%
saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage
points from last year."
The mainstream mouthpieces are extremely predictable. They will rush to blame internet and alternative
media that flourished over the last fifteen years, for this unprecedented situation. Of course they
will. They don't want any alternative to their propaganda monopoly which was extremely effective
in guiding the sheeple during the past decades.
The Western neoliberal establishment is exposed, revealing its real agenda: to challenge the alternative
bloc driven by the Sino-Russian alliance. The 'democratic' Europe proceeded in a similar, unprecedented
move recently. As reported by RT: "In a completely bonkers move this week, the EU Parliament approved
a resolution to counter "Russian propaganda" and the "intrusion of Russian media" into the EU. The
resolution was adopted with 304 MEPs voting in favor, 179 MEPs voting against it and 208 abstaining.
The most bizarre part, however, is that the resolution lumped Russian media in with Islamist propaganda
of the kind spread by terror groups like the so-called Islamic State. Thus Russian media is put on
the same level with videos of ISIS beheadings and incitements to mass murder."
It has been mentioned in previous article that "While the EU and US were occupied with the war
against terrorism as well as with the dead-end wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of the planet,
Putin had all the time to build his own mechanism against Western propaganda. Being himself a man
who had come to power with the help of media, he built his own media network which includes, for
example, the TV network Russia Today, according to the Western standards, and "invaded" in millions
of homes in the Western countries using the English language, promoting however the Russian positions
as counterweight to the Western propaganda monopoly."
In Cold War 2.0, the Western neoliberal establishment is forced to create the respective McCarthyism.
Therefore, the new dogma has changed accordingly. It doesn't matter if an alternative medium provides
a different view, away from the mainstream media propaganda. It doesn't matter if the Whistleblowers
are telling the truth about the US dirty wars and mass surveillance of ordinary citizens. As long
as the US empire and its allies are exposed by all these elements outside their Matrix control, these
elements help Russia, therefore, they are doing 'Russian propaganda'. It's as simple as that.
This latest desperate move of the establishment should alarm us all. Because it shows that the
establishment is in panic and therefore, more dangerous than ever.
When the narratives will become
completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy
will become an open, brutal dictatorship.
"... "Smearing is not reporting," the RootsAction petition says. "The Washington Post 's recent descent into McCarthyism - promoting anonymous and shoddy claims that a vast range of some 200 websites are all accomplices or tools of the Russian government - violates basic journalistic standards and does real harm to democratic discourse in our country. We urge the Washington Post to prominently retract the article and apologize for publishing it." ..."
"... For one thing, PropOrNot wasn't just another source for the Post 's story. As The New Yorker noted in a devastating article on Dec. 1, the story "prominently cited the PropOrNot research." The Post 's account "had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot's work: the group released a 32-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of 200 suspect news outlets . But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess." ..."
"... As The New Yorker pointed out, PropOrNot's criteria for incriminating content were broad enough to include "nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself." Yet "The List" is not a random list by any means - it's a targeted mish-mash, naming websites that are not within shouting distance of the U.S. corporate and foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... As The New Yorker 's writer Adrian Chen put it: "To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labeled a Russian propagandist." And he concluded: "Despite the impressive-looking diagrams and figures in its report, PropOrNot's findings rest largely on innuendo and conspiracy thinking." ..."
"... As much as the Post news management might want to weasel out of the comparison, the parallels to the advent of the McCarthy Era are chilling. For instance, the Red Channels list, with 151 names on it, was successful as a weapon against dissent and free speech in large part because, early on, so many media outlets of the day actively aided and abetted blacklisting, as the Post has done for "The List." ..."
"... Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, who led the "Red Scare" hearings of the 1950s. ..."
"... So far The New Yorker has been the largest media outlet to directly confront the Post 's egregious story. Cogent assessments can also be found at The Intercept , Consortium News , Common Dreams , AlterNet , Rolling Stone , Fortune , CounterPunch , The Nation and numerous other sites. ..."
"... But many mainline journalists and outlets jumped at the chance to amplify the Post 's piece of work. A sampling of the cheers from prominent journalists and liberal partisans was published by FAIR.org under the apt headline " Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited 'Fake News' Blacklist? " ..."
"... When liberals have green-lighted a witch-hunt, right wingers have been pleased to run with it. President Harry Truman issued an executive order in March 1947 to establish "loyalty" investigations in every agency of the federal government. Joe McCarthy and the era named after him were soon to follow. ..."
After publishing a McCarthyistic "black list" that smears some 200 Web sites as "Russian propagandists,"
The Washington Post refuses to apologize - and other mainstream media outlets pile on, writes
Norman Solomon.
We still don't have any sort of apology or retraction from the Washington Post for
promoting "The List" - the highly dangerous blacklist that got a huge boost from the newspaper's
fawning coverage on Nov. 24. The project of smearing 200 websites with one broad brush wouldn't
have gotten far without the avid complicity of high-profile media outlets, starting with the
Post .
On Thursday - a week after the Post published its front-page news
article hyping the blacklist that was put out by a group of unidentified people called PropOrNot
- I sent a petition statement to the newspaper's executive editor Martin Baron.
The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)
"Smearing is not reporting," the RootsAction
petition says. "The Washington Post 's recent descent into McCarthyism - promoting
anonymous and shoddy claims that a vast range of some 200 websites are all accomplices or tools
of the Russian government - violates basic journalistic standards and does real harm to democratic
discourse in our country. We urge the Washington Post to prominently retract the article
and apologize for publishing it."
After mentioning that 6,000 people had signed the petition (the number has doubled since then),
my email to Baron added: "If you skim through the comments that many of the signers added to the
petition online, I think you might find them to be of interest. I wonder if you see a basis for
dialogue on the issues raised by critics of the Post piece in question."
The reply came from the newspaper's vice president for public relations, Kristine Coratti Kelly,
who thanked me "for reaching out to us" before presenting the Post 's response, quoted
here in full:
"The Post reported on the work of four separate sets of researchers, as well as independent
experts, who have examined Russian attempts to influence American democracy. PropOrNot was one.
The Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list of organizations that it said
had - wittingly or unwittingly - published or echoed Russian propaganda. The Post reviewed
PropOrNot's findings and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course
of multiple interviews."
Full of Holes
But that damage-control response was as full of holes as the news story it tried to defend.
For one thing, PropOrNot wasn't just another source for the Post 's story. As
The New Yorker noted in a
devastating article on Dec. 1, the story "prominently cited the PropOrNot research." The
Post 's account "had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific
authority of PropOrNot's work: the group released a 32-page report detailing its methodology,
and named names with its list of 200 suspect news outlets . But a close look at the report showed
that it was a mess."
Contrary to the PR message from the Post vice president, PropOrNot did not merely
say that the sites on its list had "published or echoed Russian propaganda." Without a word of
the slightest doubt or skepticism in the entire story, the Post summarized PropOrNot's
characterization of all the websites on its list as falling into two categories: "Some players
in this online echo chamber were knowingly part of the propaganda campaign, the researchers concluded,
while others were 'useful idiots' - a term born of the Cold War to describe people or institutions
that unknowingly assisted Soviet Union propaganda efforts."
As The New Yorker pointed out, PropOrNot's criteria for incriminating content were
broad enough to include "nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post
itself."
Yet "The List" is not a random list by any means - it's a targeted mish-mash, naming websites
that are not within shouting distance of the U.S. corporate and foreign policy establishment.
And so the list includes a few overtly Russian-funded outlets; some other sites generally aligned
with Kremlin outlooks; many pro-Trump sites, often unacquainted with what it means to be factual
and sometimes overtly racist; and other websites that are quite different - solid, factual, reasonable
- but too progressive or too anti-capitalist or too libertarian or too right-wing or just plain
too independent-minded for the evident tastes of whoever is behind PropOrNot.
As The New Yorker 's writer Adrian Chen put it: "To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a
pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labeled a Russian
propagandist." And he concluded: "Despite the impressive-looking diagrams and figures in its report,
PropOrNot's findings rest largely on innuendo and conspiracy thinking."
As for the Post vice president's defensive phrasing that "the Post did not
name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list," the fact is that the Post unequivocally promoted
PropOrNot, driving web traffic to its site and adding a hotlink to the anonymous group's 32-page
report soon after the newspaper's story first appeared. As I mentioned in my reply to her: "Unfortunately,
it's kind of like a newspaper saying that it didn't name any of the people on the Red Channels
blacklist in 1950 while promoting it in news coverage, so no problem."
Pushing McCarthyism
As much as the Post news management might want to weasel out of the comparison, the
parallels to the advent of the McCarthy Era are chilling. For instance, the Red Channels
list, with 151 names on it, was successful as a weapon against dissent and free speech in
large part because, early on, so many media outlets of the day actively aided and abetted blacklisting,
as the Post has done for "The List."
Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, who led the "Red Scare" hearings of the 1950s.
Consider how the Post story described the personnel of PropOrNot in favorable terms
even while hiding all of their identities and thus shielding them from any scrutiny - calling
them "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds."
But many mainline journalists and outlets jumped at the chance to amplify the Post
's piece of work. A sampling of the cheers from prominent journalists and liberal partisans was
published by FAIR.org under the apt headline "
Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited 'Fake News' Blacklist? "
FAIR's media analyst Adam Johnson cited enthusiastic responses to the bogus story from journalists
like Bloomberg's
Sahil Kupar
and MSNBC's
Joy Reid
- and such outlets as
USA Today ,
Gizmodo , the
PBS NewsHour ,
The Daily Beast ,
Slate ,
AP ,
The Verge and
NPR , which "all uncritically wrote up the Post 's most incendiary claims with little
or minimal pushback." On the MSNBC site, the Rachel Maddow Show's
blog "added another breathless write-up hours later, repeating the catchy talking point that
'it was like Russia was running a super PAC for Trump's campaign.'"
With so many people understandably upset about Trump's victory, there's an evident attraction
to blaming the Kremlin, a convenient scapegoat for Hillary Clinton's loss. But the Post
's blacklisting story and the media's amplification of it - and the overall political environment
that it helps to create - are all building blocks for a reactionary order, threatening the First
Amendment and a range of civil liberties.
When liberals have green-lighted a witch-hunt, right wingers have been pleased to run with
it. President Harry Truman issued an executive order in March 1947 to establish "loyalty" investigations
in every agency of the federal government. Joe McCarthy and the era named after him were soon
to follow.
In media and government, the journalists and officials who enable blacklisting are cravenly
siding with conformity instead of democracy.
Norman Solomon is co-founder of the online activist group RootsAction.org. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He is the executive
director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.
This idea of casting dissidents as Russian Agent is directly from McCarthy play book.
And paradoxically resembles the practive of the USSR in which dissdents were demonized as "Agent
of the Western powers." The trick is a immanent part of any war propaganda efforts. So it is clear
the Cold War II had started...
Notable quotes:
"... As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that serves the governments' agendas . Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, or George Soros? ..."
"... In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." ..."
"... The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House." ..."
"... Note the term applied to Trump - "insurgent candidate." That tells you all you need to know. ..."
"... Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable. ..."
"... The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be. ..."
The "war on terror" has simultaneously been a war on truth. For fifteen years-from 9/11 to Saddam
Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" and "al Qaeda connections," "Iranian nukes," "Assad's use
of chemical weapons," endless lies about Gadaffi, "Russian invasion of Ukraine"-the governments of
the so-called Western democracies have found it essential to align themselves firmly with lies in
order to pursue their agendas. Now these Western governments are attempting to discredit the truthtellers
who challenge their lies.
Russian news services are under attack from the EU and Western presstitutes as purveyors of
"fake news" . Abiding by its Washington master's orders, the EU actually passed a resolution
against Russian media for not following Washington's line. Russian President Putin said that the
resolution is a "visible sign of degradation of Western society's idea of democracy."
As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments
as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list
of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that
serves the governments' agendas
. Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, or George
Soros?
I am proud to say that paulcraigroberts.org is on the list.
What we see here is the West adopting Zionist Israel's way of dealing with critics. Anyone who
objects to Israel's cruel and inhuman treatment of Palestinians is demonized as "anti-semitic."
In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized
as "Russian agents." The president-elect of the United States himself has been designated a
"Russian agent."
This scheme to redefine truthtellers as propagandists has backfired. The effort to discredit truthtellers
has instead produced a catalogue of websites where reliable information can be found, and readers
are flocking to the sites on the list. Moreover, the effort to discredit truthtellers shows that
Western governments and their presstitutes are intolerant of truth and diverse opinion and are committed
to forcing people to accept self-serving government lies as truth.
Clearly, Western governments and Western media have no respect for truth, so how can the West
possibly be democratic?
The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington
that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity
or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams
of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my
gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew
Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump)
"claim the White House."
Note the term applied to Trump - "insurgent candidate." That tells you all you need to know.
You can read here what passes as "reliable reporting" in the presstitute
Washington Post .
Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, which somehow escaped inclusion in The 200, unloads on Timberg
and the Washington Post
here .
Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation
of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims
have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war
criminal has been held accountable.
The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western
print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice
ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick
Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be.
Which purveys more "fake news" - RT.com on the one hand, or Fox News, MSNBC and CNN on the other?
I asked that question on reddit and my post was deleted.
General Mattis reportedly spoke of his concerns during discussions over attacking Iran and thus
fell afoul of the Washington establishment, so President Obama hastened his retirement.
Foreign Policy 's
Thomas Ricks reported :
Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way-not
because he went all "mad dog," which is his public image, and the view at the White House,
but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order
consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable.
Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What
do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for
U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, "And then what?"
Washington did have a "strategy" when it attacked Iraq, the neoconservative one. This
was to intimidate the Muslim world with massive bombing,
"Shock and Awe" we called
it, so all Muslims would be afraid of us and then do what we ordered. Then we planted giant, billion-dollar
American air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. These would, they thought, give us hegemony over Central
Asia, intimidate Russia and Iran, while Iraq would turn into a friendly, modern democracy dependent
upon Washington. Other Muslim nations would then follow with democratic regimes which would co-operate
and obey Washington's plans.
With the neocons discredited, no other strategy has replaced theirs except to "win" and come
home. This is not unusual in our history. In past wars American "strategy" has usually been to
return to the status quo ante, the prewar situation. Washington violates nearly all of Sun Tzu's
dictums for success. Endless wars for little purpose and with no end strategy are thus likely
to continue. They are, however, profitable or beneficial for many Washington interests.
Ben @ 10, it's not the USA that's addicted to war. Rather it is the US
govt AS CAPTURED BY THE OLIGARCHS. Nor is it truly an addiction, but a
means to the end of a global oligarchy. It isn't enough to see the evil
of US aggression. One must also understand why the international
institutions which have usurped nationhood around the world are evil:
Fed/IMF system, World Bank, WTO and the entire UN system to which they
belong. US hegemony has never been intended as the endgame. Oligarchical
global govt is-- initially as a decentralized administration which they
are already trying to sell you as "multipolarity".
It has been our undertaking, since 2010, to chronicle our understanding of capitalism via our book
The Philosophy of Capitalism . We were curious
as to the underlying nature of the system which endows us, the owners of capital, with so many favours. The Saker has asked me
to explain our somewhat crude statement 'Capitalism Requires World War'.
The present showdown between West, Russia and China is the culmination of a long running saga that began with World War One. Prior
to which, Capitalism was governed by the gold standard system which was international, very solid, with clear rules and had brought
great prosperity: for banking Capital was scarce and so allocated carefully. World War One required debt-capitalism of the
FIAT kind, a bankrupt Britain began to pass the Imperial baton to the US, which had profited by financing the war and selling munitions.
The Weimar Republic, suffering a continuation of hostilities via economic means, tried to inflate away its debts in 1919-1923
with disastrous results-hyperinflation. Then, the reintroduction of the gold standard into a world poisoned by war, reparation and
debt was fated to fail and ended with a deflationary bust in the early 1930's and WW2.
The US government gained a lot of credibility after WW2 by outlawing offensive war and funding many construction projects
that helped transfer private debt to the public book. The US government's debt exploded during the war, but it also shifted
the power game away from creditors to a big debtor that had a lot of political capital. The US used her power to define the new rules
of the monetary system at Bretton Woods in 1944 and to keep physical hold of gold owned by other nations.
The US jacked up tax rates on the wealthy and had a period of elevated inflation in the late 40s and into the 1950s
all of which wiped out creditors, but also ushered in a unique middle class era in the West. The US also reformed extraction
centric institutions in Europe and Japan to make sure an extractive-creditor class did not hobble growth, which was easy to do because
the war had wiped them out (same as in Korea).
Capital destruction in WW2 reversed the Marxist rule that the rate of profit always falls. Take any given market
say jeans. At first, all the companies make these jeans using a great deal of human labour so all the jeans are priced around the
average of total social labour time required for production (some companies will charge more, some companies less).
One company then introduces a machine (costed at $n) that makes jeans using a lot less labour time. Each of these robot assisted
workers is paid the same hourly rate but the production process is now far more productive. This company, ignoring the capital outlay
in the machinery, will now have a much higher profit rate than the others. This will attract capital, as capital is always on the
lookout for higher rates of profit. The result will be a generalisation of this new mode of production. The robot or machine will
be adopted by all the other companies, as it is a more efficient way of producing jeans.
As a consequence the price of the jeans will fall, as there is an increased margin within which each market actor can undercut
his fellows. One company will lower prices so as to increase market share. This new price-point will become generalised as competing
companies cut their prices to defend their market share. A further n$ was invested but per unit profit margin is put under constant
downward pressure, so the rate of return in productive assets tends to fall over time in a competitive market place.
Interest rates have been falling for decades in the West because interest rates must always be below the rate of return
on productive investments. If interest rates are higher than the risk adjusted rate of return then the capitalist might
as well keep his money in a savings account. If there is real deflation his purchasing power increases for free and if there is inflation
he will park his money (plus debt) in an unproductive asset that's price inflating, E.G. Housing. Sound familiar? Sure, there has
been plenty of profit generated since 2008 but it has not been recovered from productive investments in a competitive free market
place. All that profit came from bubbles in asset classes and financial schemes abetted by money printing and zero interest
rates.
Thus, we know that the underlying rate of return is near zero in the West. The rate of return falls naturally,
due to capital accumulation and market competition. The system is called capitalism because capital accumulates: high income economies
are those with the greatest accumulation of capital per worker. The robot assisted worker enjoys a higher income as he is highly
productive, partly because the robotics made some of the workers redundant and there are fewer workers to share
the profit. All the high income economies have had near zero interest rates for seven years. Interest rates in Europe are even negative.
How has the system remained stable for so long?
All economic growth depends on energy gain. It takes energy (drilling the oil well) to gain energy. Unlike our
everyday experience whereby energy acquisition and energy expenditure can be balanced, capitalism requires an absolute net energy
gain. That gain, by way of energy exchange, takes the form of tools and machines that permit an increase in productivity per work
hour. Thus GDP increases, living standards improve and the debts can be repaid. Thus, oil is a strategic capitalistic resource.
US net energy gain production peaked in 1974, to be replaced by production from Saudi Arabia, which made the USA a net importer
of oil for the first time. US dependence on foreign oil rose from 26% to 47% between 1985 and 1989 to hit a peak of 60% in 2006.
And, tellingly, real wages peaked in 1974, levelled-off and then began to fall for most US workers. Wages have never recovered. (The
decline is more severe if you don't believe government reported inflation figures that don't count the costof housing.)
What was the economic and political result of this decline? During the 20 years 1965-85, there were 4 recessions, 2 energy
crises and wage and price controls. These were unprecedented in peacetime and The Gulf of Tonkin event led to the Vietnam
War which finally required Nixon to move away from the Gold-Exchange Standard in 1971, opening the next degenerate chapter of FIAT
finance up until 2008. Cutting this link to gold was cutting the external anchor impeding war and deficit spending. The promise of
gold for dollars was revoked.
GDP in the US increased after 1974 but a portion of end use buying power was transferred to Saudi Arabia. They
were supplying the net energy gain that was powering the US GDP increase. The working class in the US began to experience a slow
real decline in living standards, as 'their share' of the economic pie was squeezed by the ever increasing transfer of buying power
to Saudi Arabia.
The US banking and government elite responded by creating and cutting back legal and behavioral rules of a fiat based
monetary system. The Chinese appreciated the long term opportunity that this presented and agreed to play ball. The USA
over-produced credit money and China over-produced manufactured goods which cushioned the real decline in the buying power of America's
working class. Power relations between China and the US began to change: The Communist Party transferred value to the American consumer
whilst Wall Street transferred most of the US industrial base to China. They didn't ship the military industrial complex.
Large scale leverage meant that US consumers and businesses had the means to purchase increasingly with debt so the class
war was deferred. This is how over production occurs: more is produced that is paid for not with money that represents actual realized
labour time, but from future wealth, to be realised from future labour time. The Chinese labour force was producing more than it
consumed.
The system has never differed from the limits laid down by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Real economy system can never over-produce
per se. The limit of production is absolute net energy gain. What is produced can be consumed. How did the Chinese produce such a
super massive excess and for so long? Economic slavery can achieve radical improvements in living standards for those that benefit
from ownership. Slaves don't depreciate as they are rented and are not repaired for they replicate for free. Hundreds of millions
of Chinese peasants limited their way of life and controlled their consumption in order to benefit their children. And their exploited
life raised the rate of profit!
They began their long march to modern prosperity making toys, shoes, and textiles cheaper than poor women could in South Carolina
or Honduras. Such factories are cheap to build and deferential, obedient and industrious peasant staff were a perfect match for work
that was not dissimilar to tossing fruit into a bucket. Their legacy is the initial capital formation of modern China and one of
the greatest accomplishments in human history. The Chinese didn't use net energy gain from oil to power their super massive and sustained
increase in production. They used economic slavery powered by caloric energy, exchanged from solar energy. The Chinese labour force
picked the World's low hanging fruit that didn't need many tools or machines. Slaves don't need tools for they are the tool.
Without a gold standard and capital ratios our form of over-production has grown enormously. The dotcom bubble
was reflated through a housing bubble, which has been pumped up again by sovereign debt, printing press (QE) and central bank insolvency.
The US working and middle classes have over-consumed relative to their share of the global economic pie for decades. The correction
to prices (the destruction of credit money & accumulated capital) is still yet to happen. This is what has been happening since 1971
because of the growth of financialisation or monetisation.
The application of all these economic methods was justified by the political ideology of neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism
entails no or few capital controls, the destruction of trade unions, plundering state and public assets, importing peasants as domesticated
help, and entrusting society's value added production to The Communist Party of The People's Republic of China.
The Chinese have many motives but their first motivation is power. Power is more important than money. If you're rich
and weak you get robbed. Russia provides illustrating stories of such: Gorbachev had received a promise from George HW Bush
that the US would pay Russia approximately $400 billion over10 years as a "peace dividend" and as a tool to be utilized in the conversion
of their state run to a market based economic system. The Russians believe the head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, essentially
killed the deal based on the idea that "letting the country fall apart will destroy Russia as a future military threat". The country
fell apart in 1992. Its natural assets were plundered which raised the rate of profit in the 90's until President Putin put a stop
to the robbery.
In the last analysis, the current framework of Capitalism results in labour redundancy, a falling rate of profit and ingrained
trading imbalances caused by excess capacity. Under our current monopoly state capitalism a number of temporary preventive measures
have evolved, including the expansion of university, military, and prison systems to warehouse new generations of labour.
Our problem is how to retain the "expected return rate" for us, the dominant class. Ultimately, there are only two large-scale
solutions, which are intertwined .
One is expansion of state debt to keep "the markets" moving and transfer wealth from future generations of
labour to the present dominant class.
The other is war, the consumer of last resort. Wars can burn up excess capacity, shift global markets, generate
monopoly rents, and return future labour to a state of helplessness and reduced expectations. The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million
people in 1918. As if this was not enough, it also took two World Wars across the 20th century and some 96 million dead to reduce
unemployment and stabilize the "labour problem."
Capitalism requires World War because Capitalism requires profit and cannot afford the unemployed . The point
is capitalism could afford social democracy after the rate of profit was restored thanks to the depression of the 1930's and the
physical destruction of capital during WW2. Capitalism only produces for profit and social democracy was funded by taxing profits
after WW2.
Post WW2 growth in labour productivity, due to automation, itself due to oil & gas replacing coal, meant workers could be better
off. As the economic pie was growing, workers could receive the same %, and still receive a bigger slice. Wages as a % of US GDP
actually increased in the period, 1945-1970. There was an increase in government spending which was being redirected in the form
of redistributed incomes. Inequality will only worsen, because to make profits now we have to continually cut the cost of inputs,
i.e. wages & benefits. Have we not already reached the point where large numbers of the working class can neither feed themselves
nor afford a roof over their heads?13% of the UK working age population is out of work and receiving out of work benefits. A huge
fraction is receiving in work benefits because low skill work now pays so little.
The underlying nature of Capitalism is cyclical. Here is how the political aspect of the cycle ends:
1920s/2000s High inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless
bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, rising unemployment, nationalism and extremism
What comes next? World War.
If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: "Can you solve the problem?" We
are not reliving the 1930's, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating
since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47
million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That's 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.
The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has
awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadershave reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies,
trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume
their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What's worse, they can avoid overt enemy action
and simply choose to undermine "confidence" in the FIAT.
Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded
Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it's time to Reason.
That's because they don't understand the word "capitalism."
Capitalism simply means economic freedom. And economic freedom, just like freedom to breed, must be exposed to the pruning
action of cause and effect, otherwise it outgrows its container and becomes unstable and explodes. As long as it is continually
exposed to the grinding wheel of causality, it continues to hold a fine edge, as the dross is scraped away and the fine steel
stays. Reality is full of dualities, and those dualities cannot be separated without creating broken symmetry and therefore terminal
instability. Freedom and responsibility, for example. One without the other is unstable. Voting and taxation in direct proportion
to each other is another example.
Fiat currency is an attempt to create an artificial reality, one without the necessary symmetry and balance of a real system.
However, reality can not be gamed, because it will produce its own symmetry if you try to deny it. Thus the symmetry of fiat currency
is boom and bust, a sine wave that still manages to produce equilibrium, however at a huge bubbling splattering boil rather than
a fine simmer.
The folks that wrote this do not have a large enough world view. Capitalism does not require world wars because freedom does
not require world wars. Freedom tends to bleed imbalances out when they are small. On the other hand, empire does require world
war, which is why we are going to have one.
Capitalism becomes imperialism when financial sociopaths steal profits from both sides of the trade. What you're seeing is
an Imperialism of Capital, as explained very nicely in the 1889 book "The Great Red Dragon."
Wrong. Capitalism needs prolonged directionless wars without clear winners and contained destruction that utilize massive amounts
of raw materials and endless orders for weapons and logistical support. That's what makes some guys rich.
That's was a very long-winded and deliberately obtuse way of explaining how DEBT AS MONEY and The State's usurpation of sound
money destroyed efficient markets. The author then goes to call this system Capitalism.
So yeah, the deliberate destruction of capital, in all its forms, is somehow capitalism. Brilliant observation. Fuck you. There
are better terms for things like this. Perhaps....central banking? The State? Fiat debt creation? Evil? Naw, let's just contort
and abuse language instead. That's the ticket.
I've spent my adult life in 51 countries. This was financed by correctly anticipating the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. I
was studying Marx at that time. I'm presently an employee of the Chinese State. I educate the children of China's best families.
I am the author, alongside a large international team of capitalists, of Before The Collapse : The Philosophy of Capitalism.
I also have my own business; I live with my girlfriend and was born and grew up in Ireland.
===============
Why would anyone waste time to read this drivel, buttressed by the author's credentials.
The unstated thesis is that wars involve millions of actors, who produce an end-result of many hundreds of millions killed.
Absent coercion ("the Draft"), how is any government going to man hundreds of divisions of foot soldiers. That concept is passι.
Distribute some aerosol poisons via drones and kill as many people as deemed necessary. How in the hell will that action stimulate
the world economy.
Weapons of mass-destruction are smaller, cheaper and easier to deploy. War as a progenitor of growth - forget it.
The good news is that this guy is educating the children of elite in China. Possibly the Pentagon could clone him 10,000 times
and send those cyborgs to China - cripple China for another generation or two.
The term cyclical doesn't quite cover what we have being experiencing. It's more like a ragdoll being shaken by a white shark.
The euphoria of bubble is more like complete unhinged unicorn mania anymore and the lows are complete grapes of wrath. It's probably
always been that way to some extent because corruption has remained unchallenged for a great deal of time. The boom phases are
scarier than the downturns anymore, especially the last oil boom and housing boom. Complete Alfred Hitchcock stuff.
I don't think it's capitalism and that term comes across as an explanation that legitimizes this completely contrived pattern
that benefits a few and screws everybody else. Markets should not be behaving in such a violent fashion. Money should probably
be made steady and slow. And downturns shouldn't turn a country into Zimbabwe. I could be wrong but there is really no way to
know with the corruption we have.
And War requires that an enemy be created. According to American General Breedlove-head of NATO's European Command-speaking
to the US Armed Services Committee 2 days ago, "Russia and Assad are deliberately weaponizing migration to break European resolve".
"The only reason to use non-precision weapons like barrel bombs is to keep refugees on the move". "These refugees bring criminality,
foreign fighters and terrorism", and "are being used to overwhelm European structures". "Russia has chosen to be an adversary
and is a real threat." "Russia is irresponsible with nuclear weapons-always threatening to use them." And strangely, "In the past
week alone, Russia has made 450 attacks along the front lines in E. Ukraine".
Even with insanity overflowing the West, I found these comments to be the most bizarrely threatening propaganda yet. After
reading them for the first time, I had to prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating it.
"... That star and a ribbon around Munez's wrist hint at the Spaniards' motivation for joining a war thousands of miles from home. The ribbon's red, yellow and purple are the colors of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in the 1930s where thousands of foreigners joined the leftists against right-wing foes who eventually prevailed. ..."
"... More than 1,100 people have been killed in the fighting in Ukraine since mid-April, according to the United Nations, in a civil conflict that has dragged ties between Russia and the West to their lowest since the Cold War. ..."
"... Davilla-Rivas blamed the West - which has imposed sanctions on Moscow, accusing it of backing the rebels - for stoking the war. "The United States is trying to provoke a third (world war) against Russia here with your people," he said. "Ordinary people are suffering because they are caught in between three imperial powers - the Russian Federation, the European Union and, certainly, the United States, which is putting money into all this." ..."
"... Civil war in Ukraine is going more then 4 months. 30 000 Ukrainians was killed, and 1 million expelled from their homes. ..."
"... Volunteers, revolutionaries, zealots, idealist, mercenaries are all drawn to conflicts all over the globe. ..."
Angel Davilla-Rivas, a Spaniard who came to east Ukraine to fight alongside pro-Russian rebels,
proudly shows off two big monochrome portraits of Soviet leaders Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin,
tattooed on the right and left side of his torso.
Davilla-Rivas and his comrade Rafa Munez, both in their mid-twenties, traveled by train from Madrid
to eastern Ukraine where they joined the Vostok battalion, the most prominent and heavily armed unit
fighting Ukrainian troops.
"I am the only son, and it hurts my mother and father and my family a lot that I am putting myself
at risk. But ... I can't sleep in my bed knowing what's going on here," said Davilla-Rivas, sporting
a cap with the Soviet red star pinned to it.
That star and a ribbon around Munez's wrist hint at the Spaniards' motivation for joining
a war thousands of miles from home. The ribbon's red, yellow and purple are the colors of the Republicans
in the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in the 1930s where thousands of foreigners joined the leftists
against right-wing foes who eventually prevailed.
Angel said he wanted to return the favor after the Soviet Union, under Stalin, supported the Republican
side in Spain.
More than 1,100 people have been killed in the fighting in Ukraine since mid-April, according
to the United Nations, in a civil conflict that has dragged ties between Russia and the West to their
lowest since the Cold War.
The Spaniards are not the first foreigners to enter the fight.
Men from Russia, its former rebel republic of Chechnya and the Caucasus region of North Ossetia
have fought on the rebel side along with volunteers from a Russian-backed separatist enclave of Georgia
and natives of Serbia.
Russians have also taken top positions among the rebels, though a local took over at the helm
of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk Peoples' Republic" on Thursday, in a move aimed at blunting Western
accusations the rebellion is run by Moscow.
Moscow said last month there were reports that citizens from Sweden, Finland, France and the former
Soviet Baltic states had joined pro-Kiev volunteer battalions in the east as "mercenaries".
Davilla-Rivas blamed the West - which has imposed sanctions on Moscow, accusing it of backing
the rebels - for stoking the war. "The United States is trying to provoke a third (world war) against
Russia here with your people," he said. "Ordinary people are suffering because they are caught in
between three imperial powers - the Russian Federation, the European Union and, certainly, the United
States, which is putting money into all this."
A Vostok fighter said he was happy to have the Spaniards. "We need support now, we need fighters.
An additional automatic gun will do no harm, to support, to cover one's back," said the young, brown-haired
man who did not give his name. The Spanish embassy in Moscow was not immediately available
for comment.
(Writing by Gabriela Baczynska; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)
blazo 6 months ago
Civil war in Ukraine is going more then 4 months. 30 000 Ukrainians was killed, and 1 million
expelled from their homes. Not too bad for only 4 months. But it could be better.
Commander in chief of glorious Kiev army, Mr Porkoshenko, and his sponsor in killings and expulsions,
Mr Obama are not satisfied. For money spent, much higher pace of killing should be #$%$ured. What
is their reference? In Babin Yar during WW 2, 1200 Ukrainian #$%$, with help of 300 Germans, managed
to kill 60 000 Ukrainians for only two days. So Mr Porkoshenko ask from Chef of all Ukrainian
security forces, Mr Paruby to explain discrepancy in efficiency in Babin Yar, and in Donbas killings.
Mr Paruby said: In Babin Yar Ukrainians to be killed were civilized and unarmed. They even smiled
for photographs during killing. But in Donbas they are barbaric armed people, they don t allow
us to kill them in peace. They turned arms on us, and killed 10 000 of our brave soldiers. They
burned our tanks, APCs, and shot down our jet bombers. And as a extreme barbarism, they captured
from us multiple rocket launchers, and fired on us, killing our 25th, 72nd, 79th motorized brigades.
Mr Porkoshenko said: You are fired, and kicked him with foot to his #$%$.
The great strategist and visionary, Mr Porkoshenko said on 25th of May: It is not a question
of days, weeks, or months, when rebellion in East Ukraine will be defeated. It is the question
of hours.... .
Ricardo 6 months ago
Volunteers, revolutionaries, zealots, idealist, mercenaries are all drawn to conflicts
all over the globe. Muslims are headed to Syria and Iraq from Europe and North Africa to
fight either Assad or along side ISIS, now those that believe the days of the old USSR are returning
are headed to eastern Ukraine to fight. If you look at some of the countries mentioned in this
article it will not surprise anyone that they are all from Soviet/Russian supported countries
that even after the collapse of the USSR still follow the Russians, no matter the consequences
to their country.
"... The motive is there (discredit competition), the evidence is there per the above, the legal standing is explicit, the only thing that is technically unquantifiable is the damage done. ..."
"... Both Firefox and Chrome have added the option to open in a "private" or "incognito" window or tab, which also gets you around the monthly limit. ..."
"... What NYT/WaPo lose in people not paying to read, they apparently can make up from people willing to pay to have things published. ..."
"... 'The man' who shot one round into the floor* at Comet Pizza may be an actor, Edgar Maddison Welch, who has done various jobs in media, including playing a "raver/victim". ..."
"... Yves, I would very much question your description of The Washington Post being " taken for a ride." over this story. ..."
"... It's worth pointing out that the newspapers owner Jeff Bezos was hired by the Secretary of Defense to a rather sinister sounding organisation called the " Defense Innovation Advisory Board " in July. The Boards mission statement is to .."focus on new technologies and organizational behavior and culture." Also, in addition "identify innovative private-sector practices, and technological solutions that the DoD could employ in the future." ..."
"... In short, Bezos, and his companies are now part of the MIC. I believe Googles CEO is also on the same board. ..."
"... Am I supposed to accept then that the Washington Post really thinks that the work of PropOrNot is honestly and objectively carried out? I can't. ..."
"... Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation. In this case, instead, the Post intentionally credits accusations for which it can offer no support (or at least declines to do so). I'll conclude that the Post acted maliciously and spitefully, as in slander, until it gives me reason to think otherwise. No person or media outlet can disseminate such shocking and potentially damaging accusations without our demanding accountability. ..."
"... If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.' So that shows you that senators from both parties are clearly concerned about Russian covert influence efforts. ..."
"... "Never assume malice when incompetence will explain the behavior." unless a lengthy history of errors having the same bias suggests otherwise. ..."
"... I've been a lifelong journalist, 10 years on a daily newspaper, 20 years freelancing for magazines. The Wapo story so blatantly violated fundamental journalistic standards I cannot believe any experienced editor would not have realized that. My only possible conclusion is that irresistible pressure was placed on editors to publish the story. ..."
"... You fake a document that contains the truth. When you discredit the document, you discredit the truth. Maneuvers like that show why Karl Rove really was (in his own special way) a genius. ..."
"... I followed the Bush Texas Air National Guard story in detail at the time, and the Rather story in particular, and posted on it a good deal. So far as I know, nobody ever claimed the $10,000 reward that Gary Trudeau offered for anybody who would come forward as an eye witness to Bush performing his TANG duties. ..."
"... Your comment is heavy on speculation including the notion that Bezos is directly controlling what goes into the Post. I'd say the tight little club that is mainstream journalism doesn't require government subversion in order to represent a MIC point of view. As Gore Vidal said re the deep state: they don't need to conspire since they all think alike anyway. ..."
"... With all due respect it isn't speculation that Bezos has been hired by the secretary of defence to the Defence innovation advisory board. I think you have to be very naive if you think he has little input into the editorial running of the paper. Why else buy a newspaper these days? They hardly make much money. ..."
"... The British Guardian for example has been running articles and pushing a campaign of "The Internet we want." Which seems to consist of all critiscms of what it believes being censored. ..."
"... As to Yves point about the amateur nature of this list, and the attack on sites like NC in the article, Yves shouldn't assume that all these people are geniuses. It won't be the first or the last time that powerful people who run businesses make complete fools of themselves. ..."
"... And Bezos is too busy to have much/any input into editorial decisions. Newscycles are far too rapid. Bezos might make clear what the general priorities and tone are, but he's not going to be involved in individual stories save on a very exceptional basis, and news of that would get out to reporters and make the journalism rumor mill in a bad way. Marty Peretz, who unlike Bezos was the publisher and editor in chief of the magazine he bought (the vastly smaller The New Republic) had pet priorities (Israel) and preferences (falling in love with smart young male senior editors and then becoming disenchanted with them in a couple of years and driving them out) that were widely known. ..."
"... These guys are so ludicrous that folks like Bellingcat are denouncing them. ..."
"... Carl Bernstein has done some pretty deep reporting on decades of links bw CIA and media: http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php ..."
"... Even he says there are not really any links bw CIA and WaPo as propaganda channel. As much as it'd be fun to fantasize about Bezos being an evil operator for the MIC, I am inclined toward Yves' narrative of incompetence, and an (unhealthy) dose of confirmation bias-seeking. ..."
"... Much as I would believe anything about Bezos/WP, the article is so amateurish its very hard to believe it is part of an active top-down conspiracy. I'd be more inclined to think that it 'became known' among WP staff that certain Very Important People believe in the Russian propaganda conspiracy and that any articles highlighting this are more likely to be published than others. ..."
"... Off the top of my head, some of the worst examples of journalistic libel recently have primarily been driven not by malice or conspiracies, but because of active confirmation bias. The journalist and editor strongly believes X to be true, therefore when a source comes up to provide a potentially juicy story confirming the reality and evil of X, then they leap on the source without any professional scepticism. The Rolling Stone college rape hoax comes to mind, as does a notorious case in Ireland which nearly destroyed investigative journalism in the main TV company. ..."
"... In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US. ..."
"... Zerohedge was listed as a "fake news" site but, as I'm sure many here know, they do great, hard hitting economic analysis and have had their projections and theories confirmed many times with a far better track record than the mainstream sites covering the same subject. ..."
"... I'm not sure the guys behind all this mind losing the discussion in the end. As often, even if the smeared news sites, including NC, win the debate, they'll still lose the communication war. ..."
"... The background to all this, the attempt by the Clintonites to draw on Cold War stink reserves (a National Ideological Reserve, sorta like the National Petroleum Reserve) and, if not its complete failure, than its failure to be decisively effective, makes me think we are witnessing signs of a decisive weakening in elite communication control. PropOrNot advances the process. ..."
"... We fully endorse Yves Smith's efforts. ..."
"... Additionally, we note that the only reason we haven't followed up with a similar action is because i) the allegations were beyond laughable we have rejected all of them on the record, and ii) there are simply too much other events taking place in what should otherwise be a quiet end to the year taking place to focus on what may be a lenghty, if gratifying, legal process. ..."
The thing with raising money is you have to ask, ask, ask a lot, lot, lot.
So when you need more money to continue this fight, just publish an updated case-statement
with an ask, and the lot of us will turn over our digits to support the fight. Many hands make
light work, as my mother always says.
It's refreshing to have something to support that is worthwhile in both principle and actuality.
Plus, the Post is a nasty piece of work. Same for the Times . Disgraceful and
distasteful. They are only fun to peruse for the self-parody.
Class Action libel suit against WaPo and the propornot website seems reasonable. The motive
is there (discredit competition), the evidence is there per the above, the legal standing is explicit,
the only thing that is technically unquantifiable is the damage done.
If the damages can be determined by some reasonable methodology then perhaps there is enough
to make it worth bringing a suit.
Regarding paying for the news in general, I'm assuming there aren't too many readers who who
actually want to pay WaPo or the NYT for anything at this point.
Those sites and others in recent years have imposed a monthly free article limit and I find
that sometimes after clicking on stories linked to from here I run up against the limit.
I'm sure most people here are already aware of this, but just so you are never tempted to subscribe
to their crappy organizations, all you need to do to get around the limit is use a different browser
to open the link.
My name is Choung, I'm Korean(south Korea).
Korean have experienced this kind of things many many times under the military dictatorship,
and now we were suffering from new blacklist.
Our president is daughter of the past infamous dictator.
I have visited your site and linked many good pieces. Sometimes translated them.
Korean mainstream media don't handle this story,
So, l wrote some pieces about it in public site.
I strongly express solidarity with you on behalf of many progressive Koreans.
Of tangential interest is the "news" report, if Yahoo can be so described, of the man charged
with various and sundry for threatening the pizzaria "implicated" in the pedophilia allegations
swirling around in the overheated miasma that passes for "common wisdom" today.
Of importance is the framing of the "story." The man is alleged to have gone off on his "adventure"
as the result of "fake news site" reporting. The assault on journalism is now switching from a
pure smear to a flanking maneuver. Whether real or manufactured, this act will probably be spun
to support further crackdowns on dissenting points of view. Guilt by (manufactured) association
can hurt just as badly as real guilt. All this plays out in the court of public opinion, a notoriously
rickety edifice in the best of times. \
'The man' who shot one round into the floor* at Comet Pizza may be an actor, Edgar Maddison
Welch, who has done various jobs in media, including playing a "raver/victim". Look him up on IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2625901/bio
Yves, I would very much question your description of The Washington Post being " taken
for a ride." over this story.
It's worth pointing out that the newspapers owner Jeff Bezos was hired by the Secretary
of Defense to a rather sinister sounding organisation called the " Defense Innovation Advisory
Board " in July. The Boards mission statement is to .."focus on new technologies and organizational
behavior and culture." Also, in addition "identify innovative private-sector practices, and
technological solutions that the DoD could employ in the future."
In short, Bezos, and his companies are now part of the MIC. I believe Googles CEO is also
on the same board. These so called private corporations are now part of the US govt that
works in the field of black ops. Remember also that Amazon has major contracts with the govt to
provide cloud computing storage. This is fascism in all but name. It remains to be seen how long
the new President Mr Trump will want to trust these people as they did so much to try to defeat
him.
I beg to differ. No one would want to damage their credibility above all in undermining a narrative
(in Beltway-speak) that they are tying to promote.
Remember the Dan Rather scandal? Unlike this
case, the underlying fact set about George Bush was accurate, but Dan Rather falling for bogus
evidence not only forced Rather to resign, but
diverted attention from what should have been a scandal if properly reported and
confused any attempts to discuss it (as in the Rather evidence being bad made casual observers
think the dirt on Bush was untrue).
I was also struck by the statement that the Post was 'taken for a ride'. Am I supposed
to accept then that the Washington Post really thinks that the work of PropOrNot is honestly and
objectively carried out? I can't.
Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy
of the accusation. In this case, instead, the Post intentionally credits accusations for which
it can offer no support (or at least declines to do so). I'll conclude that the Post acted maliciously
and spitefully, as in slander, until it gives me reason to think otherwise. No person or media
outlet can disseminate such shocking and potentially damaging accusations without our demanding
accountability.
And if you look at the what the Post
said to Consortium News (hat tip UserFriendly), it apparently considers just chatting with
a source for a bit an adequate basis for validating a smear against 200 publications. They effectively
admit they did no independent verification:
The reply came from the newspaper's vice president for public relations, Kristine Coratti
Kelly, who thanked me "for reaching out to us" before presenting the Post's response, quoted
here in full:
"The Post reported on the work of four separate sets of researchers, as well as independent
experts, who have examined Russian attempts to influence American democracy. PropOrNot was
one. The Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list of organizations that it said
had - wittingly or unwittingly - published or echoed Russian propaganda. The Post reviewed
PropOrNot's findings and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course
of multiple interviews."
Speaking of, do you think your inclusion on the initial "PropOrNot" list is an example of malice
or incompetence? Could it be some half-assed algorithm scanned the web for sites linking to RT
(which I can remember at least one instance popping up in Water Cooler/Links), and called it a
day? That seems the most plausible to me, but it also seems plausible that there are many organizations
which would want to discredit NC.
I haven't seen "The List", but am confident that sites like Moon of Alabama and The Saker are
on it. Saker is explicitly pro-Russia (this is not a criticism per se; I found his pieces on the
Ukraine/Donbas crisis in 2014-15 to be more illuminating than most of the very little that one
could find in the US MSM, for example) and MoA is typically skeptical of US international military
adventures.
Pieces from both of these sites have been, from time to time, linked at the NC daily
news links page. Not sure, but there may be a few links over the past couple of years to items
at Russia Insider as well. It may be that 2nd order associations were enough to "merit" NC's inclusion
on "The List."
But last week Timberg was still touting his "independent experts" in an article on a proposed
new committee mandated in the 2017 intelligence authorization bill. He quoted Wyden:
If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President
to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence
over peoples and governments.' So that shows you that senators from both parties are clearly
concerned about Russian covert influence efforts.
Linking his earlier story with this information may be self-important stupidity on Timberg's
part, but stupidity does not actually preclude malice.
In any case, if senators are treating Russian influence as fact when we have yet to be shown
any proof of its existence that is a sign this article, be it folly or malice, needs further discrediting,
so thanks and more power to you!
That's an awful aphorism. Never discount one just because the other is a potential explanation,
especially if the pattern indicates they'll abdicate their core responsibilities for access and
relish going after those they resent for calling them out on it.
Having said that, one can see how you personally wouldn't want to risk libel, but I will make
no such assumptions about the likes of the beltway press.
I've been a lifelong journalist, 10 years on a daily newspaper, 20 years freelancing for magazines.
The Wapo story so blatantly violated fundamental journalistic standards I cannot believe any experienced
editor would not have realized that. My only possible conclusion is that irresistible pressure
was placed on editors to publish the story.
"Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy
of the accusation."
Excuse me.
Rather (and CBS) had to admit that the documents used to make those accusations were fake.
How do you have "accurate accusations" when those accusations are based on faked documents?
Rather was not put in a bad positions by supporters of GW Bush.
He was put in a bad position by Dan Rather.
BTW, the Rather incident is a perfect illustration on how fake news gets reported. The underlying
accusation so matched Rather's world view that he decided to run with them without doing any sort
of fact checking. Or checking the reliability of the one source for the story.
Doing so would have prevented Rather from reporting that story and having to resign in disgrace.
This is why fact checking and verifying stories via multiple sources is so important when reporting
news.
It prevents reporting fake news.
The reason we have so much "fake news" is that too many reporters have abandoned basic journalistic
practices.
> How do you have "accurate accusations" when those accusations are based on faked documents?
You fake a document that contains the truth. When you discredit the document, you discredit
the truth. Maneuvers like that show why Karl Rove really was (in his own special way) a genius.
I followed the Bush Texas Air National Guard story in detail at the time, and the Rather story
in particular, and posted on it a good deal. So far as I know, nobody ever claimed the $10,000
reward that Gary Trudeau offered for anybody who would come forward as an eye witness to Bush
performing his TANG duties.
Your comment is heavy on speculation including the notion that Bezos is directly controlling
what goes into the Post. I'd say the tight little club that is mainstream journalism doesn't require
government subversion in order to represent a MIC point of view. As Gore Vidal said re the deep
state: they don't need to conspire since they all think alike anyway.
More likely the Post article is an example of journo dinosaurs striking out at websites they
now regard as their rivals. Print journalism has been brought low, financially, by the internet
and television.
The people who work at the Post don't dare attack television because they all
want to be on it. However the web is likely regarded as an easy target and I've long been under
the impression that mainstream journalists know practically nothing about the internet other than
Twitter and a few favored sites like Politico.
While it's potentially the greatest communication
medium ever devised, of course people visiting the internet have to bring their own truth filter.
Which is why some of us have landed here. NC seems serious about getting to the truth, and if
you don't like what's written you get to say so. What the MSM really resents is people thinking
for themselves.
With all due respect it isn't speculation that Bezos has been hired by the secretary of defence
to the Defence innovation advisory board. I think you have to be very naive if you think he has
little input into the editorial running of the paper. Why else buy a newspaper these days? They
hardly make much money.
I suspect that this outfit PropOrNot was set up before the election of Trump. They assumed
Clinton was going to win and this was the The begining of an onslaught against the so called alternative
media that was going to be waged once Hilary was safely inside the White House. Full regulation
of the Internet is their aim. This agenda has been pushed in other so called liberal newspapers.
The British Guardian for example has been running articles and pushing a campaign of "The Internet
we want." Which seems to consist of all critiscms of what it believes being censored.
As to Yves point about the amateur nature of this list, and the attack on sites like NC in
the article, Yves shouldn't assume that all these people are geniuses. It won't be the first or
the last time that powerful people who run businesses make complete fools of themselves.
I doubt
they thought they were going to be called out on it, and if Clinton won the election it didn't
really matter because they would have the power to come after the alternative media. Trumps election
has put a spanner in the works .for now. It remains to be seen if he will try to censor the Internet
under pressure from elites.
No it wasn't. They bought the URL only in late August. The first tweet was November 5. The
site appears to have been published at the earliest as of November 9, but from what I can tell,
it was November 18.
And Bezos is too busy to have much/any input into editorial decisions. Newscycles are far too
rapid. Bezos might make clear what the general priorities and tone are, but he's not going to
be involved in individual stories save on a very exceptional basis, and news of that would get
out to reporters and make the journalism rumor mill in a bad way. Marty Peretz, who unlike Bezos
was the publisher and editor in chief of the magazine he bought (the vastly smaller The New Republic)
had pet priorities (Israel) and preferences (falling in love with smart young male senior editors
and then becoming disenchanted with them in a couple of years and driving them out) that were
widely known.
Agree that Bezos is an unlikely instigator of this farce. More likely, from what we know about
the CIA/Mockingbird history, the person responsible is most likely a CIA plant at the senior editor
level.
I have to beg to differ re CIA plant. These guys are so ludicrous that folks like Bellingcat
are denouncing them. I won't link even here to the original site since that helps them in Google,
but just go look at the FAQ on the baddie's site or their Twitter feed. No one who was a pro in
any field would see them as serious. I have no idea what the reporter was smoking. But the article
reads as if they never did the most basic verification, like a web search. They didn't recognize
that the "report" which was The List, was already up and they either double down on or try to
cover for their mistake by "updating" the article saying the "report" went up Saturday November
26, when it had been up since at least November 18.
Even he says there are not really any links bw CIA and WaPo as propaganda channel. As much
as it'd be fun to fantasize about Bezos being an evil operator for the MIC, I am inclined toward
Yves' narrative of incompetence, and an (unhealthy) dose of confirmation bias-seeking.
Much as I would believe anything about Bezos/WP, the article is so amateurish its very hard
to believe it is part of an active top-down conspiracy. I'd be more inclined to think that it
'became known' among WP staff that certain Very Important People believe in the Russian propaganda
conspiracy and that any articles highlighting this are more likely to be published than others.
Off the top of my head, some of the worst examples of journalistic libel recently have primarily
been driven not by malice or conspiracies, but because of active confirmation bias. The journalist
and editor strongly believes X to be true, therefore when a source comes up to provide a potentially
juicy story confirming the reality and evil of X, then they leap on the source without any professional
scepticism. The Rolling
Stone college rape hoax comes to mind, as does a
notorious case in Ireland
which nearly destroyed investigative journalism in the main TV company.
Having said that, I think it is strongly likely that certain elements in the establishment
(probably the Clinton part of it) was actively pushing the Putin is Goebbels line for several
months but I doubt there is any structured conspiracy these things tend to just become part
of received wisdom, and there are plenty of bottom feeding journalists ready to join the parade.
Well, there's negligence, and then there's wanton, feckless, scurrilous, criminal negligence.
Recompense accordingly.
They certainly know or ought to know that, with the entire left field virtually empty, the
Bill of Rights in the round hole, and because they've foreclosed global working class solidarity
with walls, laws and red tape, (if that's too much of a stretch you don't belong), all they have
to do is squirm at us and we crash.
Well, there's negligence, and then there's wanton, feckless, scurrilous, criminal negligence.
Recompense accordingly.
They certainly know or ought to know that, with the entire left field virtually empty, the
Bill of Rights in the round hole, and because they've foreclosed global working class solidarity
with walls, laws and red tape, (if that's too much of a stretch you don't belong), all they have
to do is squirm at us and we crash.
"What the MSM really resents is people thinking for themselves."
Here are other examples of undoubtedly top-down suppression of anything other than the "kingmaker"
and corrupt status quo maintainer narratives owned by the six mega-corporations that control 90%
of what we see and hear.
The stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that's working to put Hillary Clinton in the White
House October 09, 2015
An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology
vendor for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley
and Democratic politics.
The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts
by Schmidt -- the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet -- to ensure that Clinton has
the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments
by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital
outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter
blocs.
Research Proves Google Manipulates Autocomplete Suggestions to Favor Clinton 12 Sep 2016
In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new
study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton.
He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes
in the upcoming presidential election in the US.
Ironically, Sputnick News IS, I believe, a Russian supported site, but just on a hunch and
noticing search autocompletion suggestion disparities myself, I had INDEPENDENTLY confirmed what
Epstein proved a month before the topic hit the on-line news.
I even emailed a few web sites about
it, but they didn't run with it AS THEY SHOULD HAVE as they would have scooped Sputnick News.
It was easy to prove, BTW. Google Trends data which is what is normally used to create autocomplete
suggestions on Google did not match the suggestions made, but the search autocomplete suggestions
on every other search engine DID.
YouTube and Facebook censorship against political conservative video bloggers (Google owns
YouTube)
Zerohedge was listed as a "fake news" site but, as I'm sure many here know, they do great,
hard hitting economic analysis and have had their projections and theories confirmed many times
with a far better track record than the mainstream sites covering the same subject.
My heartfelt support (and contribution) will be with you as you take on one of the most egregiously
insulting to its' readers and rot-riddled collection of hacks and mouthpieces. Now a propaganda
outlet but once at least a flaky effort at journalism, today,s Washington Post has earned an encounter
of the costly kind with a good lawyer or two, many times over.
.Illegitemi non carborundum! (Don't let the bastards wear you down!).
As I noted here this weekend, I have cancelled my subscription to the WaPo and will be sending
a check to NC in the amount of what I would have paid for it.
I am embarrassed that it took me so long to do so, but having been a subscriber since 1979
[except for when I lived elsewhere], the Post was rather a habit.
I specifically mentioned the Timberg story as the reason for my cancellation, and hope this
information will work its way up the Post food chain.
Also, Amazon is as dead to me as Walmart. I refuse to buy from either of them.
The "Fake News" story was vetted by editors at the WaPo before it was published. That they
published an article that no reputable High School paper would have touched with a 10 foot pole
speaks volumes. Hubris?.
Did they think that because it was published by the WaPo that no one would question it?
It was certainly a bold thing to do ( And stupid) unless the person or persons who decided to
publish this trash thought they had the kind of powerful backing that would protect them from
the consequences.
I expect the WaPo to try to weasel their way out of this embarassment and urge you not to back
down or compromise on your demands, if they don't get their noses rubbed in it they will crap
on you again.
When the National Enquirer has become more respectable than the WaPo ( And it is!) we are living
in strange times indeed.
If this effort begins to build a stronger alliance between truth telling internet sites -- thus
promoting change from the ground up -- perhaps it will lead to quicker consequences for Wapo and
others who pull this kind of stunt. If it becomes obvious that,
not only will your bogus story increase the traffic to these sites at the very time they are pointing
out what an idiot you are, but you also reliably get sued,
maybe it won't be as much fun anymore.
I'm not sure the guys behind all this mind losing the discussion in the end.
As often, even if the smeared news sites, including NC, win the debate, they'll still lose the
communication war.
The original revelation is buzzing around, and everybody loves it. If there is a rebuttal,
it will be a boring article nobody will comment. What people will remember is : "the russians
helped Trump win, and some fake news site like NC were their mouthpieces. I distinctly remember
the articles, even if the MSM now tries to hide the truth"
Not sure how to fight that, except with an even better message like : "There is a conspiracy
by the WP to smear independent reporting."
Sadly, I'm not sure it is possible to do that in all honestly. My opinion is that stupidity and
ignorance are at work here (and everywhere), not some well organised effort. And the thoughtful
voice is just boring.
I'm not so sure. This scandal might be something of a test of your argument, which predicts
that, similar to the horrible fate of Gary Webb, the named sites will forever have a residue of
doubt to deal with. Webb's story went the way it did because it was semiforgotten, drifting off
into the collective preconscious, vaguely malodorous. Surely that can be avoided here. Opportunities
for reminding readers of the farce and the revealed intentions of its promoters are abundant.
One thing to consider might be to put the WaPo under steady critical scrutiny. For example, as
above, the WaPo Whopper of the week.
The background to all this, the attempt by the Clintonites to draw on Cold War stink reserves
(a National Ideological Reserve, sorta like the National Petroleum Reserve) and, if not its complete
failure, than its failure to be decisively effective, makes me think we are witnessing signs of
a decisive weakening in elite communication control. PropOrNot advances the process.
Keep needling outlets that picked up the Post story and demanding a prominent apology for irresponsible
reporting. Send them the FAIR link, send them this one. Ask why they haven't reaffirmed their
commitment (sic) to basic journalistic principles . Be a damn nuisance. (I've often thought what
a pity it is that "public nuisance" has a prior signification.)
I'm relieved to know that James Moody will be representing Naked Capitalism in its authentic
quest to right an egregious (and either reckless or intentional, in my opinion) wrong committed
by a major newspaper of record that purports to represent the Fourth Estate.
Mr. Moody is technically competent, deeply experienced and highly ethical.
It's critical that the establishment-driven & coordinated assault on many credible alternative
media outlets be halted if free speech and free criticism (which mainstream media sources have
not only failed in protecting, but have willingly attempted to suppress views contrary to establishment-approved
concepts) is to survive in the United States and elsewhere.
There is a coordinated attempt by long-standing establishment media sources and government
to discredit and de-legitimize very authentic, well-intentioned and thought-provoking non-mainstream
media sources, which, if successful, would amount to nothing less than basic censorship and a
wholesale de-democratization of news reporting and editorializing.
That the Washington Post allowed for and even assisted a highly questionable and anonymous
source to cast a wide net of aspersions over so many clearly legitimate alternative media sources
(such as Naked Capitalism) is nothing short of shameful McCarthy-era attempts to stifle free political
expression of substance, and must be challengers if there's any hope in preserving the very system
of a free exchange of ideas and speech.
I can't believe the unfairness of this allegation made by this propaganda watchdog website.
I mean, if I were a Hillary supporter, I would be in tears over this. But as a Bernie supporter,
I have learned to get over my butthurt.
"You identified and thus denigrated Naked Capitalism, one of the sites targeted in the "study"
as one of the "right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding
potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal
of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions
and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia."
"shadowy cabal of global financiers" ???? We always use the stock symbols GS and JPM here.
WTF is shadowy about that?????????????? You can look the symbols up in Bloomberg!
Well, I guess maybe some fake news got posted here in the comments section, but I distinctly
recall discussing real news, like when Hillary compared Putin to Hitler, or the Cookie Monster
thing in Kiev. Or NATO scattering nukes around Eastern Europe. Or Soros and the CIA funding a
long term propaganda war in Eastern Europe. Even Fox News would call that fair and balanced fake
news. But at any rate, Russia shouldn't view any of this as hostile. That would just be childish.
Confirming the impression that the Z site monitors NC closely for useful content, Tyler Durden
now has a post up titled "Fake News" Site Threatens Washington Post With Defamation Suit, Demands
Retraction .
The post includes the Scribd document of Moody's letter.
Since the Z site reportedly generates a six-figure annual profit, you'd think this deep-pocketed
site would join the suit (should litigation regrettably become necessary). Whaddya say, Tyler(s)?
He's actually quite technically expert (as in he can take apart and analyze software) which
is why I don't get the aol.com either. Although he may have been an early aol.com user, and I
am told it is a nuisance to extract your contacts from aol.com, and he may have decided it was
not worth the fuss.
Now the post is "gray boxed" (pinned) on the Z site, making it one of two lead articles that
apparently are expected to generate a high level of interest and comments.
It's not monetary support, however, the story now ends thus,
We fully endorse Yves Smith's efforts.
Additionally, we note that the only reason we haven't followed up with a similar action
is because i) the allegations were beyond laughable we have rejected all of them on the record,
and ii) there are simply too much other events taking place in what should otherwise be a quiet
end to the year taking place to focus on what may be a lenghty, if gratifying, legal process.
Pass the popcorn! Mr. Moody is a terrific lawyer. I just hope that if Aurora Advisors winds
up owning ScAmazon, the workers and suppliers start getting treated decently!
You're too nice to WaPo Yves, maybe this was incompetence but Bezos and WaPo are terrible and
they did too many hit pieces on Trump which included false information, so this is not a coincidence.
They are the fake news, and that's terrifying. Good luck and may you destroy them.
Good luck. I agree with your demands and hope that they are satisfied.
I gave up a long time ago on either the tv or mainstream print media as a source of credible
or factual news. There are some print publications out there that do a rather decent job at reporting
the news more accurately, but the ones I know of are mostly smaller local newspapers with very
limited budgets.
All the Bigs are propaganda pure and simple. I gave up reading the NYT and the WaPoo a long
long time ago. It would embarress a parrot to have either on the bottom of their cage to catch
their sh*t.
Where's Bezos? I'm still speculating this is Bezos' answer to Trump's birthing. Annoy the press
like hell. Let them whine and sue. Then save the country.
Addressing the Whappo's "incompetence" is genius bec. it cannot shake the label. It will stick
with them now, whereas if you had gone for the throat with an accusation of malice the Whappo
could have escaped all that disgust and resentment because to prove malice you have to prove intent.
Like fraud. It's hard to do.
It has been a difficult to watch these past 8 years under the continued conversion of whatever
was left of MSM being turned to merely a propaganda arm for the Executive branch. It is absolutely
hilarious that they had the audacity to write the article in the first place since MSM is the
only "real" fake news outlet. I do believe it will be a difficult road to achieve a full retraction
or even an acknowledgement because they will hide behind the concepts of editorial content. Nothing
they write is vetted or researched because they merely conjure articles to fit their preconceptions.
If nothing else, pushing back is still the right thing to do . just remember to not let it consume
you to the detriment of your continued good work on this site.
Does the threat of civil litigation even matter to an organization with Bezos' endless resources
to draw on? They would probably love the idea of a war of monetary attritionthey can't lose that
game. It seems to me the weak link might be the creators of the website itself. Unlike a hardened
target like the WaPo, they are unlikely to have such bottomless resources. The first step may
be to use investigation or litigation to strip away the anonymity of the publishers of the site,
probably by going after the hosting company, then to attack them directly. And if it turns out
that filing website whois papers via a proxy privacy service is 100% surefire, ironclad protection
from any legal accountability, then there really is no longer anything like accountability for
web publishing. If that is the case then there is nothing stopping you from retaliating in kind,
creating an anonymous website accusing Bezos of being a child pornographer or whatever and imploring
that he and his lawyers negotiate with you to have the accusations retracted at your pleasure.
Either filing whois papers for a domain using a privacy proxy is an unbreakable defense against
litigation, or it isn't.
My experience with journalists (as an organiser of non-profit activities) has convinced me
that nowadays they do little to no fact-checking. In one particular case I know of, mainstream
UK media including the Independent and the BBC publicized a man that, if they had simply bothered
doing a Google search on his name, they'd immediately realize he had zero credibility on the field
he was claiming expertise on.
This should hardly be a surprise to anyone who has followed the story of climate change, with
dozens of so-called "climate change" experts being allowed to write opinion pieces on mainstream
media, in spite of having no credentials, and sometimes having long credentials of having lobbied
for every dubious cause known to mankind, from the health safety of tobacco to the lack of issues
with pesticides.
The real issue is that it's getting damned near impossible for anyone to find out the truth
about any controversial issue without spending a long time researching the subject. And most people
don't have the time for this, and don't even know that they should regard the news on any controversial
issue, from any source, with great suspicion.
If one is serious about pursuit of a retraction and apology from Wapo, support for NC's cautious
approach is in order. It will not help the case being advanced to overstate with inferences about
WaPo's motives. Sticking to the already known objective facts will be enough to produce the desired
result, public discredit of WaPo by its own hand.
That's said with full sympathy for the feelings on WaPo, a publication that now ranks with
W. R. Hearst's in sheer depths of vileness. And that in general is rightfully laid at the door
of its libertardian owner Jeff Bezos, a man whose enterprises mark all that is most evil about
US capitalism today. But none of this belongs in the retraction / apology effort. As I see it,
the effort is designed to produce a specific effect from specific cause. That effort is best supported
by not second-guessing it at this point and over-loading it with meanings that can't be demonstrated
within the context of the effort. Let's give it a chance to run and review / critique the result
afterward.
Finally and for the record, this is said as someone with no sympathy for the Putin regime,
one that no leftist should have any truck with, "conscious or unconscious", especially from an
"anti-imperialist" POV. The Putin regime is right wing, capitalist, neo-nationalist, revanchist,
and neo-imperialist (and not at all "wannabe"). It supports with armed force a regime in Damascus
that has destroyed "its own country" to save itself. It IS a regime ideologically congruent with
Donald Trump's tendencies. IOW Putin's Russia is a lot like the United States in political coloration
right now.
Nevertheless, residents of the USA must first and foremost act against repression conducted
by their own government and its political agents such as WaPo. We can agree to disagree on Putin
while showing solidarity against domestic repression, especially of this poisonous neo-McCarthyite
type. That is only common sense. Our main opponent is always at home.
After more than a few decades of educational decline and loss of expertise, we have arrived
at the Age of Incompetence. That the WaPo would hire such nitwits is all the proof one needs.
The most reasonable hypothesis I can see is that the PropOrNot effort is a response by the
MSM to reassert information control, having lost it so spectacularly during the election. The
alternative media's counterstory has proven to be more faithful to reality than the picture presented
by elite journalists. Elite journalists themselves have been compromised by the Wikileaks revelations.
The MSM's reputation is in tatters and SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, at least until enough time has
gone by for the public to forget how truly dismally deceptive was their coverage.
A consistently suspicious pattern of MSM behavior is their incuriousness, and in the present
situation, one of the many of the herd of interrogatory elephants in the room is, why isn't the
MSM investigating the people who make up PropOrNot? (Or asking any of the questions NS has posed).
Would that not be newsworthy?
I agree with this assessment wholeheartedly. I am afraid that the strategy of the dem establishment
and their elite media allies over the next 4 years will be to regain narrative control via censorship,
rather than make any attempts at governing like small-d democrats.
The red baiting is popping out from all sides. Last week Amy Goodman interviewed Bernie the
first (she basically ignored him through the primary). She started off with "you were considered
a fringe candidate " and he politely reminded her he has been in congress for 25 years. Then she
said that he had been red-baited during the primary by Clinton over Castro and the Sandinistas
and "could he speak some about Castro and Latin America?" And at every opportunity she reminded
the audience he was an independent, not a Democrat, "a socialist."
I have been told that Sarah Palin blew her chance to be Sec. of Interior, or VA, or whatever
it was because she criticized Trump for "crony capitalism" over the Carrier deal.
I'm totally confused about who our friends are these days.
How has "Beall's List" of so-called "predatory" open-access academic research publishers escaped
a similar lawsuit? Some of these publishers were shut down as a direct result of being named so
the list has undeniably done damage since being published in 2013. There seem to be strong parallels
between "Fake News" and "Fake Science" censorship efforts.
It's not unreasonable the Washington Post would confuse Naked Capitalism with a Porn site.
But not a Russian porn site, that's just not credible since Naked Capitalism is English.
They should just admit it they made up fake news. They probably never read anything on the
site - or even looked at the pictures of naked animals. Naked pussys. Lots of those. With garish
flash photography. It's enough to embarrass anybody with refined aesthetic sensibilities.
But it isn't Porn and it's not Russian. I've never seen a Russian pussy here. Usually they're
American or maybe from England. Sometimes they're even guys. That's kind of confusing, but a cat
is a cat to most people. I'm not a veterinarian anyway.
Fake news is the scourge of the internet. Fake news has been around a long time, as long as
there were newspapers in fact. It started in the 1700s and it kept going. Before that it was fake
but it was only passed by word of mouth.
Now there's fake pictures. Fake news with fake pictures can sometimes be art - but only if
you see it in the movies, where some drug addled lunatic pretends they're somebody else, then
they go into rehab after the movie is made and sometimes before. News should be real, in theory,
but in reality it isn't. Somebody makes it up but you don't always know who. That's why jourmalism
is so important, because you want the person making it up to be accurate! You don't want them
making up Porn and publishing that. Why pay for that? People make that up themselves evidently
and don't even need a newspaper.
So if they fell for the fake Porn angle here - thinking that Naked meant Porn, and from Russia
of all places! - that must mean they're either making it up or they don't know what real news
is from anywhere. Since it could be from other places besides Russia. If they went to a museum
they'd see naked things but not Porn. There's a museum of things but it's not news or porn, it's
just whatever. I'm just being honest. It doesn't have to be confusing, even for somebody who writes
and takes pictures.
The tendency towards consensus has been apparent in the mainstream media for forty plus years
, long before the internet came along and upset things. What has caused mass hysteria in those
circles is the sound of these other uncontrolled and uncontrollable voices . Years ago the only
comment section of a national newspaper was ' Letters to the Editor ' which the editor had the
veto over, never mind editorial responsibility for, and he / she took their job seriously ( in
my first hand experience ) . Those days are long gone . Imagine you are a young, or even a seasoned
journalist on one of these papers and you think you have the ear of the editor , the temptation
to bring forth a story ( ' scoop ' in old fashioned newspaper speak ) that gives umpteen internet
sites a good kicking must be hard to resist. Trouble is the story was trashed before it hit the
ground . And so another nail goes in the coffin of the mainstream press .
"... I keep trying to point out that these nations are proxies for the global plutocrats that own private finance and everything else. That is the social cancer we need to eliminate. The British people are not all bad any more than all Americans but all of private finance is bad and has been for centuries. ..."
Well, if you looked at it and decided against it why am I wasting my time? "unlike the U.S.
military which is used to destroys foreign cities without much thought of the aftermath" Always
with the nasty, sneering, condescending attitude toward us. I remind you that it was the BRITISH
army that destroyed your grandparents house, not the US Army. pl"
and the usa has learned and followed the British in so many of it's imperialist ways carrying
the mantel for empire building forward into the 20th and 21st century.. enough of British or
American
bullshit..
@ james who wrote " and the usa has learned and followed the british in so many of it's imperialist
ways caring the mantel for empire building forward into the 20th and 21st century.. enough
of british or american bullshit."
I keep trying to point out that these nations are proxies for the global plutocrats that own
private finance and everything else. That is the social cancer we need to eliminate. The British
people are not all bad any more than all Americans but all of private finance is bad and has been
for centuries.
The Crisis of the Twelfth Century: Power, Lordship, and the Origins of European Government
by Thomas N. Bisson Princeton University Press, 677 pp., $39.50
One of the major institutions of pre-industrial society, and one that makes it hard for people
in the modern Western world fully to grasp the past, is lordship. Lordship means a personal bond,
reciprocal but not equal, tying inferiors to superiors, bringing the latter a power over the former
that modern democratic and egalitarian ideologies would abhor. We are not accustomed to address
others as "Master" or "Mistress," "My Lord" or "My Lady."
Of course modern Western societies are not communities of equals. Vast differences in wealth
and access to education exist. But the world of lordship embraced and endorsed those differences.
Hierarchy was a valued ideal, and some people considered themselves better born than others-remember
those nineteenth-century novels with characters "of good family." The aristocrats ("aristocracy"
means "rule by the best") did not court their inferiors. They ruled them, and, if they were just
and well disposed, they protected them and furthered their interests. This is what "good lordship"
meant. Not all lords, of course, were good. Submission to cruel, arbitrary, or unhinged masters
could mean misery or death. Much of the savagery of the French Revolution is to be explained by
the fact that thousands of peasants had suffered just such a submission.
Thomas Bisson's new book concerns itself with lordship, that all-pervasive institution, in
a formative period of European history, the twelfth century (or rather the "long twelfth century,"
starting well before 1100 and continuing after 1200). It is an age that evokes for many the majesty
of the great cathedrals, like Chartres and Canterbury, the rise of a new kind of intellectual
inquiry, embodied in the questing spirit of Abelard or the emergence of the first universities,
and the flourishing of the love lyrics of the troubadours and the tales of Arthurian romance.
There is even the (now well established but initially paradoxical) notion of "the Twelfth-Century
Renaissance." This book, however, presents a different, and much darker, twelfth century.
Bisson, professor of medieval history emeritus at Harvard, is one of the leading historians
of the Middle Ages. His early work concentrated on Catalonia, a region with particularly rich
archival sources from this period; he has continually expanded both his geographical range and
the breadth of the historical questions he asks. In the 1990s he was a participant in a lively
debate on the so-called "Feudal Revolution," the theory that a transformation in the patterns
of power and authority took place in Europe in the decades around the year 1000. In those years
it was argued that older, official, and public structures of justice and administration were replaced
by new, more violent, and more localized forms, based on strongmen and their fortresses.
In his new book many of the elements of that "Feudal Revolution" recur, now extended to a later
period. Bisson's summary of developments in Catalonia in the years 1020 to 1060 presents such
a picture very clearly: there was "a terrifying collapse of public justice and the imposition
of a new order of coercive lordship over an intimidated peasantry." Moving on into the twelfth
century, the model is still recognizable: there is an "old passing world" ruled by a few nobles,
and a "burgeoning new world" of "vicious men," castle-lords and knights prepared to use violence
against the despised peasantry. This book is indeed an extended discussion of the issues arising
from that earlier debate. Bisson acknowledges that it is "not a systematic treatise, still less
a textbook," and those unfamiliar with the period may soon be lost. The book is an interpretation,
an individual assessment of European history of that period, one that takes a stand on a dozen
debated issues, often in implicit dialogue with other scholars. The main topics are lordship,
violence, and the state.
Lordship was a building block of most societies until relatively recently -- serfdom was abolished
in Russia only in 1861. Such societies were distinguished by extreme inequalities, made visible
by costume and gestures, like bowing and doffing of hats, and often supported by belief in hereditary
superiority and inferiority of blood. Collective groupings existed, but were not powerful, and
conflict and ambition were channeled more by vertical than horizontal solidarities: retainers,
servants, and other followers and dependants sought patronage from the great, not action alongside
their peers. At the highest level, lesser aristocrats became followers of great aristocrats, who
themselves would be competing for the ruler's favor. Costume dramas set in Tudor England, like
Shakespeare in Love and Elizabeth, convey some of the flavor of such a world.
It was the prevalence of lordship that complicates any discussion of the medieval state. Bisson
repeatedly uses the far from standard formulations "lord-king," "lord-ruler," and even "lord-archbishop"
to convey the point that every ruler of this time was also a lord, a master of men, a patriarch
of some kind, possessing his position as inheritance or property, rather than (or as well as)
holding it as an office-indeed, he writes, "there is no sign that European people in the twelfth
century thought of lordship and office as contrasting categories."
Kings were lords, but also more than lords. Like the great barons, their power was patrimonial:
that is, inherited, dynastic, based on ideas of property we might call "private." A king's kingdom
was his in the same way that a baron's landed estates were his. Transmission of power was through
father-to-son inheritance, not by election. Hence marriages, births, and deaths were the great
punctuating points of medieval politics, not caucuses and ballots. Yet a king was also more than
just the greatest of the barons. Both the Church and a long secular tradition saw him as having
special duties as a ruler, duties that might be called "public."
This dualism of lordship and the state meant that medieval rulership had two distinct faces,
which were close to being opposites: on the one hand, the grand promises made at coronation by
kings and emperors, to ensure justice and the protection of the weak and the Church; on the other
hand, the reality of being a warlord trained in mounted warfare, a leader of proud, hard men,
used to wielding lethal edged weapons, and the center of a court full of envy, ambition, and suspicion.
Europe in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was a militarized world: it was "an age of castles,"
when "those astride horses and bearing weapons routinely injured or intimidated people" -- although,
of course, they were still doing it in the thirteenth century, fourteenth century, fifteenth century,
and beyond. The Cossacks were still doing it in the twentieth century. This raises a problem.
In the absence of even a hint of dependable statistics, it is virtually impossible to weigh up
the relative violence of different periods and places of the past. We know all the difficulties
involved in dealing with modern crime figures; for the past we rarely have figures of any kind,
but must rely on stories told by chroniclers (often ecclesiastical) and interested parties (usually
plaintiffs). Historians read the laments, the individual accounts of plunder, murder, and rape,
and try to assess whether this was the way life was then, or whether it simply reflects a very
bad moment in that world. And while there can be little doubt that levels of violence were higher
in the medieval period than in modern Western peacetime societies, we, who live in the aftermath
of the worst genocidal atrocities in recorded history, should not make that claim with any complacency.
It is not difficult to gather stories of local violence and oppression from the eleventh and
twelfth centuries. But if we put these twelfth-century tales alongside those of the sixth-century
historian-bishop Gregory of Tours, whose History of the Franks reveals a world of monstrous cruelty,
we might wonder if things had really gotten much worse in the intervening six hundred years. On
one occasion, Gregory writes, a noble discovered that two of his serfs had married without his
consent: he supposedly said how delighted he was that they had at least not married serfs from
another lordship; he promised that he would not separate them, and then kept his word by having
them buried alive together. And was the twelfth century any more full of violence than, say, late
medieval France, a happy hunting ground for mercenaries and freebooters during the Hundred Years'
War?
The rulers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries were trained in, and glorified, war, and expected
to live off it, as well as off the tribute of a subjugated peasantry. If such rulers formed "the
state" of their day, what are the implications? The state engages in violence; it takes away our
property. How then does it differ from a criminal enterprise? This was a question that went back
at least as far as Saint Augustine in the fourth century:
What are robber gangs, except little kingdoms? If their wickedness prospers, so that they set
up fixed abodes, occupy cities and subjugate whole populations, they then can take the name of
kingdom with impunity.
Augustine's ponderings stem from the worrying doubt that states and kingdoms, indeed all lawfully
constituted governments, are just the most successful of the robber gangs. This idea, that the
state and the criminal gang are but larger and smaller versions of the same thing, was one recurrent
strand in medieval thinking. In the words of Gregory VII, the reformist pope of the eleventh century:
Who does not know that kings and dukes had their origin in men who disregarded God and, with
blind desire and intolerable presumption, strove to dominate their equals, that is, other men,
through pride, plunder, perfidy, homicides, and every kind of crime, under the inspiration of
the lord of this world, the devil?
Westerns (like Sam Peckinpah's Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid) often explore the thin line between
the gunslinger and the sheriff, or the poignancy of the bandit turned law officer; and the thinness
of that line is clear in the Middle Ages. In the fourteenth century the kings of France, wishing
to concentrate their forces against the English, called upon their barons to curtail their own
feuds and vendettas: "We forbid anyone to wage war (guerre) during our war (guerre)." What the
king does and what the feuding nobles do is the same kind of thing-"war." Nowadays, we make a
sharper distinction. For instance, in the modern world, someone who takes our property away is
either a criminal or a tax collector. If the latter, then it is the state taking our property
away, and most people, of most political outlooks, distinguish the lawmakers from the lawbreakers.
Traditionally the state took away people's property in order to finance war. In Charles Tilly's
phrase, "the state made war and war made the state." The war-making, tax-raising state is indeed
the standard, familiar political unit of modern world history. If we go back in time, do we reach
a period when such an entity did not exist?
Bisson is not a scholar who throws the term "state" around freely. Indeed, the conceptual vocabulary
of his book is worth a mention. On the one hand, Bisson is happy to use the traditional but deeply
contested terms "feudal" and "feudalism," both of which even have entries in his glossary at the
end of the book. He can write of "a massive feudalizing of England by the Normans." Some historians
would do away with these concepts altogether. Even if some kinds of estates were called "fiefs"
(feoda), they argue, why should that fact lead us to a characterization of a whole society? Perhaps
a touch of self-questioning is visible in Bisson's embrace of the terminology: "'Feudal monarchy':
is this the right concept?" he asks.
In contrast to his acceptance of this traditional terminology, Bisson has a marked tendency to
use large conceptual terms with a peculiar, even personal, connotation. "Political" is an example.
The bishops of this period, he says, "vied with one another for visible precedence," yet such
struggles "were not political disputes; they were concerned with status, not process." A footnote
refers us to an infamous incident when the archbishop of York, noticing that the archbishop of
Canterbury had a seat higher than his, kicked it over and refused to be seated until he had a
seat as high. Now, one might reasonably class this as a nursery tantrum, but why should not a
public dispute over precedence count as "political"?
This wariness about the term "political" (usually in scare quotes in the book) is based on the
idea that lordship "was personal, affective, and unpolitical in nature." Might it not be clearer
to say that the politics of that time was not the same as the politics of ours? It may be that
we have here an example of a recurrent dilemma, either to say that the power relations of long
ago are not politics at all, or to say that they are, but that we must differentiate between medieval
and modern politics. Similarly, we may say that the superior authorities of that time cannot be
called states at all; or we can argue that they were, but that we must distinguish medieval and
modern states.
One of the most important examples of Bisson's idiosyncratic use of general terms is his treatment
of the word "government." He is reluctant even to apply the term to Norman England. "Royal lordship"
was not the same thing as "government." Sometimes government is completely absent. Late-twelfth-century
Europe was "an ungoverned society," although there were also "proto-governments" at this time;
by the mid-thirteenth century "something like government hovered." This unwillingness to see the
rulers of the central Middle Ages as constituting "governments" is to be explained partly because,
in Bisson's view, the people of that time lacked any understanding of the state as distinct from
lordship, but also because there are certain criteria for government, as distinct from lordship,
that the rulers did not meet. He identifies three: accountability, official conduct, and social
purpose.
"Accountability" is an important term in Bisson's historical vocabulary. Sometimes it means
quite literally the rendering of financial accounts, like the Catalan fiscal records which Bisson
himself has edited. He emphasizes the birth, in the twelfth century, of "a newly searching and
flexible accountability," as simple surveys of resources and fixed revenues, which can be found
from early in the Middle Ages, were supplemented by balance sheets of incoming and outgoing assets.
The English Pipe Rolls, annual audits of income and expenditures of the royal sheriffs, are a
classic example. The English Dialogue of the Exchequer of 1178, or thereabouts, reveals a department
of government that is professional, with its own technical expertise, and (in the Dialogue) its
own handbook or manual. Slightly later, in 1202, there appears what has been called "the first
budget of the French monarchy."
But Bisson also uses the word in a broader sense: accountability means official responsibility,
answerability. He associates it with the idea of office. Record-keeping is in fact one test of
official status. And true government is "the exercise of power for social purpose," "social purpose"
perhaps to be glossed here as "the common good." It is the emergence of "official conduct aimed
at social purpose," linked, interestingly, with the rise of public taxation, that, for Bisson,
signals the shift of the balance from lordship to government in the thirteenth century.
However, the chronology of state formation in the Middle Ages is a disputed issue. Some historians
talk as if there were a stateless period at some point in the central Middle Ages. Others hold
the view that, to take one notable example, the kingdom of England of the year 1000 was not only
a state but a strong, centralized, and pervasive state. If taxation and a standardized coinage
are, in Bisson's words, parts of "a new model of associative power" around the year 1200, then
the uniform land tax and centralized currency of eleventh-century England show that that model
already existed in some places two hundred years earlier.
What cannot be disputed is that over the course of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries,
the state became increasingly bureaucratic. The documents produced by the English government in
the eleventh century could be placed on one large table (even given that monumental oddity, Domesday
Book, the extensive survey of land ownership made in 1086 under William the Conqueror). The documents
produced by the English government in the thirteenth century fill whole rooms and could never
be read in one person's lifetime. Written records supplemented or replaced older oral forms of
information gathering, testimony, or command (Michael Clanchy's 1979 masterpiece, From Memory
to Written Record, analyzes this development for precociously bureaucratic England in the Norman
and Plantagenet period). But more bureaucratic government does not necessarily mean less violent,
or even less arbitrary, government.
Historians like bureaucracy, because it feeds their hunger for written sources, the raw material
with which they work; but the bond between historians and government is deeper than that. The
historical profession grew up in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in close symbiosis
with government. Not only was the heart of historical study usually the archives produced by past
governments, but many of the students and teachers in those generations, the first to study history
as a discipline, entered government service. Charles Homer Haskins, the founding father of American
medieval scholarship, was an adviser to Woodrow Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.
He was also the teacher of Joseph Strayer, himself the teacher of Bisson. Such academic genealogies
can be overplayed, but there is no doubt that all three great medievalists, Haskins, Strayer,
and Bisson, demonstrate a deep-rooted concern with the techniques and records of administration,
with the procedures of the bureaucrats and officials. Strayer was as familiar with the modern
as with the medieval version, since he worked for the CIA One of his most vigorous pieces of
work is entitled On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (1970; one might notice the emphasis
on both the "origins" and the "modern"; we live in the modern state; its origins go back a long
way, but the state of those days was not the state of ours). The book contains Strayer's cogent
definition of feudalism as "public powers in private hands," with that confident assurance that
these adjectives, "public" and "private," convey a simple and evident distinction that will arouse
no intellectual discomfort in readers. By contrast, Bisson's book is generated in part by his
wrestling with such concepts and their implications.
Bisson's book is called The Crisis of the Twelfth Century. "Crisis" means a vitally important
or decisive stage in the progress of anything. But in that sense, any century of human history
is a crisis. One might even say that this is simply the condition of human life-we are always
in an Age of Crisis (although the situation might not always be as alarming as today's). Bisson
acknowledges that "'crisis' was not a common word in the verbiage of the day," and the one instance
he cites of the contemporary use of the word (in its Latin form discrimen) refers to a succession
crisis in Poland in 1180. He wishes to see the various distinct political crises he discusses
(such as the Saxon revolt of 1075, the communal insurrection in Laon in 1111, the "anarchy" of
King Stephen's reign) as part of "the same wider crisis of multiplied knights and castles."
However, a case can be made that the levels of violence and disorder in this period were largely
dictated by the patterns of high politics rather than by a deep-seated structural malaise. Disputed
successions, or the accession of a child-king, could indeed upset the world of knights and castles,
unleashing the strongmen and their castle-based predatory attacks. Yet a regime of knights and
castles could also form the basis for fairly stable feudal monarchies, such as one sees in France
and England for most of the thirteenth century. If this is so, there were, of course, crises in
the twelfth century, but no Crisis.
The violence and greed of European knights of this period were directed beyond the local victims.
Bisson's "long twelfth century" was not only an age of predatory lords in their castles bullying
their peasantry but also an age of expansionary, one could say colonialist, violence. Christian
armies, led by these predatory lords, crossed into Muslim lands, capturing Toledo in 1085, Jerusalem
in 1099, and landing in North Africa in 1148; they destroyed the last remnants of West Slav paganism
in the Baltic in 1168; they even turned their formidable fighting strength against their estranged
Christian cousins in the Greek East, and sacked Constantinople in 1204. The energies generated
in the conflicts between mounted men in the West, and the expertise they acquired in subjugating
and fleecing the local peasantry, could be exported. The story of European violence is far from
unique, but it was in the central Middle Ages that it took a form that shaped the subsequent history
of the world.
A traditional view of the development of European society in the central Middle Ages, a view
to be found in textbooks past and present, is that the empire of Charlemagne (747814) and his
successors had important elements of public authority, in the form of officials with delegated
powers and courts open to all free men, but that this regime was replaced, around the year 1000,
with a heavily militarized and violent world of strongmen in castles, lording it over peasants.
Over the course of time this world was, in its turn, transformed by the persistent efforts of
the kings of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries into a network of more centralized and bureaucratic
states, which led ultimately to modern systems of government. Like every model at this level of
generality, as long as people who know something about the subject have created it, there must
be some truth in this picture, however little it can be the whole truth. But we might have questions.
Was the "old public order" of Charlemagne and his successors so public and so ordered? Was the
subsequent regime so close to anarchy?
Bisson adds to this traditional account by thinking deeply about the benefits and disadvantages
of government. He is very aware of the inhumanity of the past he studies. He refers, with allusion
to the words of the twelfth-century cleric John of Salisbury, to "hunter-lords." John was talking
about the way that aristocrats were obsessed with the chase, but we might apply his phrase in
a wider sense. Since some theorists believe that human society is imprinted with its origins in
hunting packs and the mentality of the pack, the predatory lordship of the central Middle Ages
could be conceived of as just such a hunting pack-but its prey being fellow human beings, rather
than beasts.
Confronting this world of hunter and hunted, Bisson is inspired by attractively humane impulses.
In an earlier book, Tormented Voices, a microhistorical analysis of complaints raised by Catalan
peasants in the twelfth century, he stated explicitly that he was attempting "an essay in compassionate
history." Likewise in this book. And he looks for public, accountable, official remedies for suffering
and oppression. He seems sympathetic to the idea that "power is rightly oriented towards the social
needs of people." "If ever government was the solution, not the problem," he writes, "it was so
for European peoples in the twelfth century." Is the modern world so happy in its governments?
Whether we should endure the violence of the state, as a defense against the yet more fearful
violence of our neighbors, and whether there comes a point where the violence of the state must
be resisted are great recurrent questions of moral and political life. The questions raised by
Bisson's book remain open.
@4 psychohistorian.. and i agree with you in that too.. it has to do with the packaging and a
tendency in people to identify with the packaging - in this example 'made in the usa' as some
sort of rationale for that social sickness many suffer from called 'patriotism'.. it seems to
be especially prevalent in the worst nations, the usa at this point in time being the focal point
for much of this marketing...
@ okie farmer who added a loooong comment that contained the following about the definition of
government:
"
He identifies three: accountability, official conduct, and social purpose.
"
The narrative provided did not get into a discussion of "social purpose" but I think that it
is an important concept. The example I would posit is the original humanistic motto of the US,
E Pluribus Unum which was instantiated by government creations of the time like the pony express....true
socialism, if you need an ism to cling to. Social Security INSURANCE is another example of an
instantiation of social purpose.
The original US motto was replaced by In God We Trust in the mid 1950's which, IMO, destroyed
the social purpose concept of government and instead tells you to trust the leaders and religious
institutions.....reversion to kings and feudalism.
You get the government you demand. What sort of world do you want to pass to the children?
"... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
"... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
"... "How America Was Lost" ..."
"... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
"... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
"... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
"... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
"... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
"... "historical turning point," ..."
"... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
"... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
"... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
"... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
"... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
"... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
"... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the
"world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.
The former
US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his
blog
that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's
control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."
Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in
Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."
The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant
propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic
alliance."
Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK,
Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of
world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."
"On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country
with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.
He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe
finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our
likely future."
Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts
who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were
there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.
A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of
Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents
43 percent said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.
"Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia
that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out
of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."
The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played
by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate
and alienate Russia.
Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary
of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States
of America for their contribution to the victory.'"
The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we
are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"
While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake
that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.
"... " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. " ..."
"... A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). " ..."
"... " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. " ..."
Intelligence reports examined and now released by the Chilcot inquiry appear to confirm Islamic State
(IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) was created by the Iraq war, a view now apparently backed by Britain's Tory
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. The reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which
were previously classified, tell the story of the security services' increasing concern that the
war and occupation was fuelling ever more extremism in Iraq.
The evidence also appears to debunk repeated claims by former PM Tony Blair that IS began in the
Syrian civil war and not Iraq, positioning the brutal group's rise clearly within Iraq's borders.
The Chilcot findings were backed up Thursday by serving Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond. He
told The Foreign Affairs Committee " many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that
disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a program of de-Baathification
."
" That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards
we might have been able to see a different outcome, " he said.
Hammond conceded that many members of Saddam's armed forces today filled top roles in IS.
" It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional
core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it
has shown in conducting its operations. "
The documents show that by 2006 three years into the occupation UK intelligence chiefs were
increasingly concerned about the rise of Sunni jihadist resistance to the Western-backed regime of
Shia President Nouri Al-Maliki.
A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of
suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian
campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared
the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). "
Many leading Al-Qaeda figures had been pro-regime Baathists and members of the former Iraqi Army
disbanded by the occupation. They are broadly accepted to have later formed the basis for IS.
The report describes AQ-I as being " in the vanguard. "
" Its strategic main effort is the prosecution of a sectarian campaign designed to drag Iraq
into civil war " at the head of a number of other Sunni militia groups.
" We judge its campaign has been the most effective of any insurgent group, having significant
impact in the past year, and poses the greatest immediate threat to stability in Iraq. The tempo
of mass-casualty attacks on predominantly Shia targets has been relentless, " the spies argue.
Chillingly, an earlier report from 2006 appears to echo some of the realizations made late in
the Vietnam War that there were also strong elements of nationalism driving the insurgency.
" They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in
many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common
cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. "
The reports appear to suggest that the conditions also somewhat echo the Afghanistan war, which
by that time was already underway, in that the anti-coalition forces displayed a mix of ideological
and economic drivers to resist the occupation.
" Their motivation is mixed: some are Islamist extremists inspired by the AQ agenda, others
are simply hired hands attracted by the money, " the spies warn.
The religious sectarianism involved, however, was distinctly Iraqi and reflected the power battle
between the deposed Sunni forces and the US-installed Shia regime which replaced it.
They also appeared to believe that AQ-I was composed of local and not, as was claimed at the time,
foreign fighters.
" We judge Al-Qaida in Iraq is the largest single insurgent network and although its leadership
retains a strong foreign element, a large majority of its fighters are Iraqi.
" Some are drawn in by the opportunity to take on Shia militias: the jihadists' media effort
stresses their role as defenders of the Sunni ," the report concludes.
Prophetically, even before IS began to germinate in Iraq, one now-declassified Foreign Office
memo from January 2003 warned "all the evidence from the region suggests that coalition forces
will not be seen as liberators for long, if at all. Our motives are regarded with huge suspicion.
"
AHHA -> Blue Car 7 Jul
No there was a documentary on the rise of IS months ago on Dutch television coming to the same
conclusion. Kicking all Baath party members (all Sunni people) out of the army, leaving only Shiite
in created IS. Baath militairy specialists did it out of revenge. One former high Baath militairy
officer even went up to the room of the American leadership on Irak to tell him that if they would
kick Baath people out he would have no other option than to start fighting America. Because what
would all those people have to live of. And they did not just kick them out of the army but out
of all government posts. But the Americans and making one group less equal to another by treating
them different, does that ring any bells. ?
AHHA -> Blue Car 8 Jul
It was not Fox, I loath them. It was a well built Dutch documentary not praising the Americans
for a change but being real True, together with Bush and the rest of their accomplices, of the
most horrific mass killings based on lies (more than a million innocent people have perished because
of their deceitful actions)! We should all demand Justice for the sake of humanity, and also because
it is the only way to deter feature self-righteous leaders like them from leading our world to
more blood sheds and catastrophic destructions! No one should be above the law!
Blue Scissors -> Red Snow 7 Jul
No, Bush and Cheney are the biggest terrorist. Blair just followed behind them, like a sheep.
Linx 7 Jul
Its clear that the U.S. government was the instigator of the war in Iraq based on 911and WMD.
Blair in his ambition to reached the top lied to his parliament because there is noway they did
not have the intelligence there not WMDs. In a stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen.
Wesley Clark claims America underwent a "policy coup" at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this
video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified
memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. He was told: "We learned that we can use our military
without being challenged . We've got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before
another superpower comes along and challenges us." "This was a policy coup these people took control
of policy in the United States. The interview is still available in the internet.
Orange Tag 7 Jul
What I want to be informed about is the ICC court date set for Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
the generals ordering the killings of innocent people in Iraq. It's time for the west to wake
up and provide all and every help that Syrian legitimate government needs, and for west to stop
the support of Saudis, Qatari and others alike regimes whom are the providers and are state sponsors
of terrorism as Isis and others a like called " "moderates terrorist". Look you fly the Emirates
you pay for the costs of their terrorism in Middle East.
keghamminas 7 Jul Edited
Very true about the blind destructive policy of the US-Nato that should have attacked Saudi Arabia
instead of Iraq .The same faults are committed now against Syria and it's legal government ; the
total destruction of this country will lead to more anarchy and new terrorist movements as what's
happenning in Iraq. All the puppets ,like the UK are guilty by their criminal participation.
Malcolm stark 7 Jul
Yet another problem caused by Washington and Co and yet their are still people even here who say
Russia, Russia, Russia. And will make excuses for the problems caused without blaming their own
government.
CyanDog 7 Jul
Sexton: What a surprise. An investigation designed to whitewash the criminal activities of our
beloved Western leaders turned out to be eminently successful. A playful slap on the wrist for
Mr Blair, but basically the Western criminals made to look like good guys although a few unintentional
mistakes were made. From now on the West can continue business as usual. I wonder which countries
the West has currently set its future sights on? I would suggest that Iran, Russia and China should
keep their powder dry. The Westerners are playing for keeps, and they do not care who gets hurt
on either side.
An interesting warning about possible return of neocons in Hillary administration. Looks like not
much changed in Washington from 2005 and Obama more and more looks like Bush III. Both Hillary and Trump
are jingoistic toward Iran. Paradoxically Trump is even more jingoistic then Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal. ..."
"... And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ). ..."
"... Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." ..."
"... What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. ..."
"... In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence. ..."
"... Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of dιjΰ vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement. ..."
"... So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped. ..."
That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway
marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all
its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which
has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal.
As Los Angeles Times reporter Douglas Frantz wrote at one point, "Though Israel is a democracy,
debating the nuclear program is taboo A military censor guards Israel's nuclear secrets." And this
"taboo" has largely extended to American reporting on the subject. Imagine, to offer a very partial
analogy, if we all had had to consider the Cold War nuclear issue with the Soviet, but almost never
the American nuclear arsenal, in the news. Of course, that would have been absurd and yet it's the
case in the Middle East today, making most strategic discussions of the region exercises in absurdity.
I wrote about this subject under the title,
Nuclear Israel
, back in October 2003, because of a brief break, thanks to Frantz, in the media blackout on the
subject. I began then, "Nuclear North Korea, nuclear Iraq, nuclear Iran - of these our media has
been full for the last year or more, though they either don't exist or hardly yet exist. North Korea
now probably has a couple of crude nuclear weapons, which it may still be incapable of delivering.
But nuclear Israel, little endangered Israel? It's hard even to get your head around the concept,
though that country has either the fifth or sixth largest nuclear arsenal in the world." And
not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier
by Ira Chernus on a
graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and
still viewable
).
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy
in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which
has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels
of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective,
and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well
as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited
to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support
for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was
emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium,
generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues
for their insights and suggestions." Now, read on. ~ Tom
Attacking Iran: I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...
By Ray McGovern
"'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.'
"(Short pause)
"'And having said that, all options are on the table.'
"Even the White House stenographers felt obliged to note the result: '(Laughter).'"
For a host of good reasons -- the huge and draining commitment of U.S. forces to Iraq and Iran's
ability to stir the Iraqi pot to boiling, for starters -- the notion that the Bush administration
would mount a "preemptive" air attack on Iran seems insane. And still more insane if the objective
includes overthrowing Iran's government again, as in 1953 -- this time under the rubric of "regime
change."
But Bush administration policy toward the Middle East is being run by men -- yes, only men
-- who were routinely referred to in high circles in Washington during the 1980s as "the crazies."
I can attest to that personally, but one need not take my word for it.
According to James Naughtie, author of The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency
, former Secretary of State Colin Powell added an old soldier's adjective to the "crazies"
sobriquet in referring to the same officials. Powell, who was military aide to Defense Secretary
Casper Weinberger in the early eighties, was overheard calling them "the f---ing crazies" during
a phone call with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw before the war in Iraq. At the time, Powell
was reportedly deeply concerned over their determination to attack -- with or without UN approval.
Small wonder that they got rid of Powell after the election, as soon as they had no more use for
him.
If further proof of insanity were needed, one could simply look at the unnecessary carnage
in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003. That unprovoked attack was, in my view, the most fateful
foreign policy blunder in our nation's history...so far.
It Can Get Worse
"The crazies" are not finished. And we do well not to let their ultimate folly obscure
their current ambition, and the further trouble that ambition is bound to bring in the four years
ahead. In an immediate sense, with U.S. military power unrivaled, they can be seen as "crazy like
a fox," with a value system in which "might makes right." Operating out of that value system,
and now sporting the more respectable misnomer/moniker "neoconservative," they are convinced that
they know exactly what they are doing. They have a clear ideology and a geopolitical strategy,
which leap from papers they put out at the
Project for the New American Century
over recent years.
The very same men who, acting out of that paradigm, brought us the war in Iraq are now focusing
on Iran, which they view as the only remaining obstacle to American domination of the entire oil-rich
Middle East. They calculate that, with a docile, corporate-owned press, a co-opted mainstream
church, and a still-trusting populace, the United States and/or the Israelis can launch a successful
air offensive to disrupt any Iranian nuclear weapons programs -- with the added bonus of possibly
causing the regime in power in Iran to crumble.
But why now? After all, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency has just told Congress
that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until "early in the next decade?" The answer,
according to some defense experts, is that several of the Iranian facilities are still under construction
and there is only a narrow "window of opportunity" to destroy them without causing huge environmental
problems. That window, they say, will begin to close this year.
Other analysts attribute the sense of urgency to worry in Washington that the Iranians may
have secretly gained access to technology that would facilitate a leap forward into the nuclear
club much sooner than now anticipated. And it is, of course, neoconservative doctrine that it
is best to nip -- the word in current fashion is "preempt" -- any conceivable threats in the bud.
One reason the Israelis are pressing hard for early action may simply be out of a desire to ensure
that George W. Bush will have a few more years as president after an attack on Iran, so that they
will have him to stand with Israel when bedlam breaks out in the Middle East.
What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about
a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who
welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. For me, this
evokes a painful flashback to the early eighties when "intelligence," pointing to "moderates"
within the Iranian leadership, was conjured up to help justify the imaginative but illegal arms-for-hostages-and-proceeds-to-Nicaraguan-Contras
caper. The fact that the conjurer-in-chief of that spurious "evidence" on Iranian "moderates,"
former chief CIA analyst, later director Robert Gates, was recently offered the newly created
position of director of national intelligence makes the flashback more eerie -- and alarming.
George H. W. Bush Saw Through "The Crazies"
During his term in office, George H. W. Bush, with the practical advice of his national security
adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker, was able to keep "the crazies"
at arms length, preventing them from getting the country into serious trouble. They were kept
well below the level of "principal" -- that is, below the level of secretary of state or defense.
Even so, heady in the afterglow of victory in the Gulf War of 1990, "the crazies" stirred up
considerable controversy when they articulated their radical views. Their vision, for instance,
became the centerpiece of the draft "Defense Planning Guidance" that Paul Wolfowitz, de facto
dean of the neoconservatives, prepared in 1992 for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. It dismissed
deterrence as an outdated relic of the Cold War and argued that the United States must maintain
military strength beyond conceivable challenge -- and use it in preemptive ways in dealing with
those who might acquire "weapons of mass destruction." Sound familiar?
Aghast at this radical imperial strategy for the post-Cold War world, someone with access to
the draft leaked it to the New York Times , forcing President George H. W. Bush either
to endorse or disavow it. Disavow it he did -- and quickly, on the cooler-head recommendations
of Scowcroft and Baker, who proved themselves a bulwark against the hubris and megalomania of
"the crazies." Unfortunately, their vision did not die. No less unfortunately, there is method
to their madness -- even if it threatens to spell eventual disaster for our country. Empires always
overreach and fall.
The Return of the Neocons
In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking
positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of
lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of
Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once
occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs.
From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old
colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director
of national intelligence.
Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too
concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of dιjΰ vu . They
are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous
policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement.
Why dwell on this? Because it is second in importance only to the portentous reality that the
earth is running out of readily accessible oil something of which they are all too aware. Not
surprisingly then, disguised beneath the weapons-of-mass-destruction smokescreen they laid down
as they prepared to invade Iraq lay an unspoken but bedrock reason for the war -- oil. In any
case, the neocons seem to believe that, in the wake of the November election, they now have a
carte-blanche "mandate." And with the president's new "capital to spend," they appear determined
to spend it, sooner rather than later.
Next Stop, Iran
When a Special Forces platoon leader just back from Iraq matter-of-factly tells a close friend
of mine, as happened last week, that he and his unit are now training their sights (literally)
on Iran, we need to take that seriously. It provides us with a glimpse of reality as seen at ground
level. For me, it brought to mind an unsolicited email I received from the father of a young soldier
training at Fort Benning in the spring of 2002, soon after I wrote an op-ed discussing the timing
of George W. Bush's decision to make war on Iraq. The father informed me that, during the spring
of 2002, his son kept writing home saying his unit was training to go into Iraq. No, said the
father; you mean Afghanistan... that's where the war is, not Iraq. In his next email, the son
said, "No, Dad, they keep saying Iraq. I asked them and that's what they mean."
Now, apparently, they keep saying Iran ; and that appears to be what they mean.
Anecdotal evidence like this is hardly conclusive. Put it together with administration rhetoric
and a preponderance of other "dots," though, and everything points in the direction of an air
attack on Iran, possibly also involving some ground forces. Indeed, from the
New Yorker reports
of Seymour Hersh to
Washington Post articles , accounts of small-scale American intrusions on the ground as well
as into Iranian airspace are appearing with increasing frequency. In a speech given on February
18, former UN arms inspector and Marine officer Scott Ritter (who was totally on target before
the Iraq War on that country's lack of weapons of mass destruction) claimed that the president
has already "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June in order to destroy its alleged nuclear
weapons program and eventually bring about "regime change." This does not necessarily mean an
automatic green light for a large attack in June, but it may signal the president's seriousness
about this option.
So, again, against the background of what we have witnessed over the past four years, and the
troubling fact that the circle of second-term presidential advisers has become even tighter, we
do well to inject a strong note of urgency into any discussion of the "Iranian option."
Why Would Iran Want Nukes?
So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago.
Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well,
you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped.
Recovering quickly and realizing that he could not just leave the word "Israel" hanging there,
Lugar began again: "Well, Israel is alleged to have a nuclear capability."
Is alleged to
have ? Lugar is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and yet he doesn't know that
Israel has, by most estimates, a major nuclear arsenal, consisting of several hundred nuclear
weapons? (Mainstream newspapers are allergic to dwelling on this topic, but it is mentioned every
now and then, usually buried in obscurity on an inside page.)
Just imagine how the Iranians and Syrians would react to Lugar's disingenuousness. Small wonder
our highest officials and lawmakers -- and Lugar, remember, is one of the most decent among them
-- are widely seen abroad as hypocritical. Our media, of course, ignore the hypocrisy. This is
standard operating procedure when the word "Israel" is spoken in this or other unflattering contexts.
And the objections of those appealing for a more balanced approach are quashed.
If the truth be told, Iran fears Israel at least as much as Israel fears the internal security
threat posed by the thugs supported by Tehran. Iran's apprehension is partly fear that Israel
(with at least tacit support from the Bush administration) will send its aircraft to bomb Iranian
nuclear facilities, just as American-built Israeli bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor
at Osirak in 1981. As part of the current war of nerves, recent statements by the president and
vice president can be
read as giving a green light to Israel to do just that; while Israeli Air Force commander Major
General Eliezer Shakedi told reporters on February 21 that Israel must be prepared for an air
strike on Iran "in light of its nuclear activity."
US-Israel Nexus
The Iranians also remember how Israel was able to acquire and keep its nuclear technology.
Much of it was stolen from the United States by spies for Israel. As early as the late-1950s,
Washington knew Israel was building the bomb and could have aborted the project. Instead, American
officials decided to turn a blind eye and let the Israelis go ahead. Now Israel's nuclear capability
is truly formidable. Still, it is a fact of strategic life that a formidable nuclear arsenal can
be deterred by a far more modest one, if an adversary has the means to deliver it. (Look at North
Korea's success with, at best, a few nuclear weapons and questionable means of delivery in deterring
the "sole remaining superpower in the world.") And Iran already has missiles with the range to
hit Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has for some time appeared eager to enlist Washington's support
for an early "pre-emptive" strike on Iran. Indeed,
American
defense officials have told reporters that visiting Israeli officials have been pressing the
issue for the past year and a half. And the Israelis are now claiming publicly that Iran could
have a nuclear weapon within six months -- years earlier than the Defense Intelligence Agency
estimate mentioned above.
In the past, President Bush has chosen to dismiss unwelcome intelligence estimates as "guesses"
-- especially when they threatened to complicate decisions to implement the neoconservative agenda.
It is worth noting that several of the leading neocons Richard Perle, chair of the Defense Policy
Board (2001-03); Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser, Middle
East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney -- actually wrote policy papers for the Israeli government
during the 1990s. They have consistently had great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic
interests of Israel and those of the US -- at least as they imagine them.
As for President Bush, over the past four years he has amply demonstrated his preference for
the counsel of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who,
as Gen. Scowcroft said publicly , has the president "wrapped around his little finger." (As
Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until he was unceremoniously removed
at the turn of the year, Scowcroft was in a position to know.) If Scowcroft is correct in also
saying that the president has been "mesmerized" by Sharon, it seems possible that the Israelis
already have successfully argued for an attack on Iran.
When "Regime Change" Meant Overthrow For Oil
To remember why the United States is no favorite in Tehran, one needs to go back at least to
1953 when the U.S. and Great Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Premier Mohammad
Mossadeq as part of a plan to insure access to Iranian oil. They then emplaced the young Shah
in power who, with his notorious secret police, proved second to none in cruelty. The Shah ruled
from 1953 to 1979. Much resentment can build up over a whole generation. His regime fell like
a house of cards, when supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini rose up to do some regime change of their
own.
Iranians also remember Washington's strong support for Saddam Hussein's Iraq after it decided
to make war on Iran in 1980. U.S. support for Iraq (which included crucial intelligence support
for the war and an implicit condoning of Saddam's use of chemical weapons) was perhaps the crucial
factor in staving off an Iranian victory. Imagine then, the threat Iranians see, should the Bush
administration succeed in establishing up to 14 permanent military bases in neighboring Iraq.
Any Iranian can look at a map of the Middle East (including occupied Iraq) and conclude that this
administration might indeed be willing to pay the necessary price in blood and treasure to influence
what happens to the black gold under Iranian as well as Iraqi sands. And with four more years
to play with, a lot can be done along those lines. The obvious question is: How to deter it? Well,
once again, Iran can hardly be blind to the fact that a small nation like North Korea has so far
deterred U.S. action by producing, or at least claiming to have produced, nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Is the Nub
The nuclear issue is indeed paramount, and we would do well to imagine and craft fresh approaches
to the nub of the problem. As a start, I'll bet if you made a survey, only 20% of Americans would
answer "yes" to the question, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" That is key, it seems to me,
because at their core Americans are still fair-minded people.
On the other hand, I'll bet that 95% of the Iranian population would answer, "Of course Israel
has nuclear weapons; that's why we Iranians need them" -- which was, of course, the unmentionable
calculation that Senator Lugar almost conceded. "And we also need them," many Iranians would probably
say, "in order to deter 'the crazies' in Washington. It seems to be working for the North Koreans,
who, after all, are the other remaining point on President Bush's 'axis of evil.'"
The ideal approach would, of course, be to destroy all nuclear weapons in the world
and ban them for the future, with a very intrusive global inspection regime to verify compliance.
A total ban is worth holding up as an ideal, and I think we must. But this approach seems unlikely
to bear fruit over the next four years. So what then?
A Nuclear-Free Middle East
How about a nuclear-free Middle East? Could the US make that happen? We could if we had moral
clarity -- the underpinning necessary to bring it about. Each time this proposal is raised, the
Syrians, for example, clap their hands in feigned joyful anticipation, saying, "Of course such
a pact would include Israel, right?" The issue is then dropped from all discussion by U.S. policymakers.
Required: not only moral clarity but also what Thomas Aquinas labeled the precondition for all
virtue, courage. In this context, courage would include a refusal to be intimidated by inevitable
charges of anti-Semitism.
The reality is that, except for Israel, the Middle East is nuclear free. But the discussion
cannot stop there. It is not difficult to understand why the first leaders of Israel, with the
Holocaust experience written indelibly on their hearts and minds, and feeling surrounded by perceived
threats to the fledgling state's existence, wanted the bomb. And so, before the Syrians or Iranians,
for example, get carried away with self-serving applause for the nuclear-free Middle East proposal,
they will have to understand that for any such negotiation to succeed it must have as a concomitant
aim the guarantee of an Israel able to live in peace and protect itself behind secure borders.
That guarantee has got to be part of the deal.
That the obstacles to any such agreement are formidable is no excuse not trying. But the approach
would have to be new and everything would have to be on the table. Persisting in a state of denial
about Israel's nuclear weapons is dangerously shortsighted; it does nothing but aggravate fears
among the Arabs and create further incentive for them to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.
A sensible approach would also have to include a willingness to engage the Iranians directly,
attempt to understand their perspective, and discern what the United States and Israel could do
to alleviate their concerns.
Preaching to Iran and others about not acquiring nuclear weapons is, indeed, like the village
drunk preaching sobriety -- the more so as our government keeps developing new genres of nuclear
weapons and keeps looking the other way as Israel enhances its own nuclear arsenal. Not a pretty
moral picture, that. Indeed, it reminds me of the Scripture passage about taking the plank out
of your own eye before insisting that the speck be removed from another's.
Lessons from the Past...Like Mutual Deterrence
Has everyone forgotten that deterrence worked for some 40 years, while for most of those years
the U.S. and the USSR had not by any means lost their lust for ever-enhanced nuclear weapons?
The point is simply that, while engaging the Iranians bilaterally and searching for more imaginative
nuclear-free proposals, the U.S. might adopt a more patient interim attitude regarding the striving
of other nation states to acquire nuclear weapons -- bearing in mind that the Bush administration's
policies of "preemption" and "regime change" themselves create powerful incentives for exactly
such striving. As was the case with Iraq two years ago, there is no imminent Iranian strategic
threat to Americans -- or, in reality, to anyone. Even if Iran acquired a nuclear capability,
there is no reason to believe that it would risk a suicidal first strike on Israel. That, after
all, is what mutual deterrence is all about; it works both ways.
It is nonetheless clear that the Israelis' sense of insecurity -- however exaggerated it may
seem to those of us thousands of miles away -- is not synthetic but real. The Sharon government
appears to regard its nuclear monopoly in the region as the only effective "deterrence insurance"
it can buy. It is determined to prevent its neighbors from acquiring the kind of capability that
could infringe on the freedom it now enjoys to carry out military and other actions in the area.
Government officials have said that Israel will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon; it would
be folly to dismiss this as bravado. The Israelis have laid down a marker and mean to follow through
-- unless the Bush administration assumes the attitude that "preemption" is an acceptable course
for the United States but not for Israel. It seems unlikely that the neoconservatives would take
that line. Rather
"Israel Is Our Ally."
Or so
said
our president before the cameras on February 17, 2005. But I didn't think we had a treaty
of alliance with Israel; I don't remember the Senate approving one. Did I miss something?
Clearly, the longstanding U.S.-Israeli friendship and the ideals we share dictate continuing
support for Israel's defense and security. It is quite another thing, though, to suggest the existence
of formal treaty obligations that our country does not have. To all intents and purposes, our
policymakers -- from the president on down -- seem to speak and behave on the assumption that
we do have such obligations toward Israel. A former colleague CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, author
of Imperial Hubris , has put it this way: "The Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight
the ropes binding the American Gulliver to Israel and its policies."
An earlier American warned:
"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for
the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where
no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the
former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement
or justification.... It also gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, who devote
themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own
country." ( George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796 )
In my view, our first president's words apply only too aptly to this administration's lash-up
with the Sharon government. As responsible citizens we need to overcome our timidity about addressing
this issue, lest our fellow Americans continue to be denied important information neglected or
distorted in our domesticated media.
Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 27 years -- from the administration of John
F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. During the early 1980s, he was one of the writers/editors
of the President's Daily Brief and briefed it one-on-one to the president's most senior advisers.
He also chaired National Intelligence Estimates. In January 2003, he and four former colleagues
founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
"... By Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book is ..."
"... So, yes, Trump's critique of American generalship possesses merit, but whether he knows it or not, the question truly demanding his attention as the incoming commander-in-chief isn't: Who should I hire (or fire) to fight my wars? Instead, far more urgent is: Does further war promise to solve any of my problems? ..."
"... As a candidate, Trump vowed to "defeat radical Islamic terrorism," destroy ISIS, "decimate al-Qaeda," and "starve funding for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah." Those promises imply a significant escalation of what Americans used to call the Global War on Terrorism. ..."
"... In that regard, his promise to "quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS" offers a hint of what is to come. ..."
"... To a very considerable extent, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, preferred candidate of the establishment, because he advertised himself as just the guy disgruntled Americans could count on to drain that swamp. ..."
"... Were Trump really intent on draining that swamp - if he genuinely seeks to "Make America Great Again" - then he would extricate the United States from war. His liquidation of Trump University, which was to higher education what Freedom's Sentinel and Inherent Resolve are to modern warfare, provides a potentially instructive precedent for how to proceed. ..."
"... Celebrity Apprentice ..."
"... Which brings us, finally, to that third question: To the extent that deficiencies at the top of the military hierarchy do affect the outcome of wars, what can be done to fix the problem? ..."
"... The most expeditious approach: purge all currently serving three- and four-star officers; then, make a precondition for promotion to those ranks confinement in a reeducation camp run by Iraq and Afghanistan war amputees, with a curriculum designed by Veterans for Peace . Graduation should require each student to submit an essay reflecting on these words of wisdom from U.S. Grant himself: "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword." ..."
"... this is the double failure of Washington. You might give them some credit if they were competent imperialists. But they are the worst of all worlds. They are reckless imperialists who can't even achieve their own stated aims with a modicum of competence. Real imperialists of the past would be rolling around laughing at this lot. ..."
"... They're not imperialists, they're corporatists. Graft is the object, and given that construction companies like Halliburton and mercs like Xe don't bankroll Ds, and since bombing campaigns are easy to keep up/out of the news, the money has now shifted to drones. ..."
"... I think they are imperialists in the sense that, as William Appleman Williams and others have argued, their primary orienting goal is to extend and sustain the US dominance of a world market. ..."
"... If you read what US foreign policy and military planners were saying in after WW2, that's an inescapable conclusion. Your focus on the corporation takes as a given what those planners have felt they need to strategically and militarily secure. Bacevich consistently avoids this issue and so ends up promoting a naive and implicitly hopeful view of US motives and the flexibility with which they can be pursued. ..."
"... It's really quite something to go back and read Dean Acheson testifying to a congressional committee that, unlike the Soviet Union, the US requires steady expansion of the world market to survive. He sounds like Rosa Luxemburg. ..."
"... The US is a nation of racketeers, which are perfecting the corruption of services into means of converting tax revenue into private profits. Some of these services are in fact essential, all have been at least until recently unassailable regardless of merit. Examples are housing, education, health care, private transportation and of course "national security". The rackets trace back to the exceptional US economic circumstances of WW2, and the leading racket was well established at the end of the Eisenhower presidency (his CYA address notwithstanding). ..."
"... For the "self-licking ice-cream cone" of military/security/intelligence/public safety expenditures to continue to grow exponentially, it is not only unnecessary for the tax-purchased services and goods to be functional, let alone deliver results it is positively counterproductive. The question is not whether any captured government institution is dysfunctional, the question is merely whether and how the profitability it delivers to the "accounting control frauds" in charge of the incumbents can be increased. ..."
"... Success in any enterprise requires the definition of a goal. I believe that the goal of U.S. military action in MENA is two-fold: display fealty to Israel and the kings of the Arabian Peninsula; and to grow the corporate coffers of the MIC here at home. Defined in that way, the U.S. military has "hit it outta da park." Winning? Winning was a pipe dream of the likes of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Cheney knew better and took GWB along for a ride. ..."
"... I am highly suspicious that publicly stated goals of the wars were the actual targets. My take is that the actual goal has always been to keep those places in chaos; on US terms and under its control. with a safe US military base to punch those second-rate nations if necessary; By that measure, I believe both the Iraq and Afghan invasions were a success but they cannot pat each other's backs publicly. ..."
"... I think that may have been his point, albeit delivered obliquely, as in his statement that "some wars should not be fought"; his quote from Grant, "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword", as well as elsewhere in the piece. ..."
"... Drain the swamp indeed, extricate the military from our national misadventures and retire the top brass more intent on career advancement that the true needs of the nation. Problems solved and we can move on as a nation. Will the world fall apart, if true men and women of honor step forward, I highly doubt it. ..."
"... Pretty radical stuff actually, but something that resonates with many people, people without a voice. Change will come from within the military, and it is refreshing to hear words of sanity form those inside the military system-Tulsi Gabbard for one. ..."
"... There isn't too much of an incentive to win if you're a careerist either which many of them are since the military is a giant welfare program/bureaucracy largely based on licking boots to advance. It might be nice to add another accolade to that fat stack of attendance ribbons on their chests but that's all it is. Also, even if you were super serious about winning the war look at what happened to Shinseki when he clashed with the civilian leadership over the numbers of troops needed to pacify Iraq post-war. He was marginalized and finally canned altogether. ..."
"... James P. Levy , Ph.D. FRHistS, a man who never hid behind a goddamned nom de plume ..."
"... Bacevich has made the point (as have others) that when the draft was eliminated voters no longer had skin in the game and became ambivalent which is why the founding fathers set up the system with the citizen soldier as a cornerstone principle. ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich, as usual, writes a great article. But Grant and Sherman benefited from having a war with a clear goal: destroy the Confederate army and its government. I hesitate to call anything happening with the US in the Middle East or North Africa or SE Asia a "war" of that nature. There are no clear objectives. There are no criteria for an end of the conflict. ..."
"... Instead, this looks a whole lot more like the North's occupation of the South during Reconstruction. We all know how that ended: the North had to pull itself out after an economic depression, more or less leading to a reign of terror through Jim Crow. ..."
"... You make a good, concise case for what the real objectives are for these unending expensive wars. Of course, this level of clarity re these goals are seldom stated to the populace at large. Rather we're mostly fed bullshit about terrrrists and being kept "safe" and other noodleheaded claptrap. ..."
"... Yes, as I said above, the neocons objective have been an abject failure. They display incompetence at all levels. And yet nobody pays the price. And the fact that the neocons don't try to fire the generals who failed (as numerous political leaders in the past have done) is a reflection of both their incompetence and the fact that the wars have become the ultimate in self licking ice creams. ..."
"... Ordinary people make the mistake of believing that the current crop of leaders have their interests in mind at all. They do not. If Clintons Public/Private mumbo jumbo didn't clear you of that thinking I don't know what will. ..."
"... The proper way to think about these things is the neocon plan is succeeding wonderfully but they are truly too short sighted- i.e. stupid in the long term- to understand the consequences. They understand short term profit completely and how to dispense physical power but little else. Consequences and payback are externalized in their world ..."
"... 30 years in lockup for Chelsea Manning is a warning for those, I suspect, who want to say "enough is enough." I also believe that your ability to move up the hierarchy to make those decisions to keep fighting is determined by your willingness to continue to see through the neoliberal project. ..."
"... I disagree to the extent that the ideological neocons had a very clearly stated and unambiguous strategic purpose re-engineering the world as America's corporate playground, with any possible competitor (i.e. Russia and China) firmly penned in. This meant replacing all the mid-size States which were still refusing to be part of the Washington Consensus. ..."
"... Its no secret or mystery about what they were seeking. In this, they have failed Afghanistan remains in chaos, Iraq is more Iran controlled than US controlled, Iran still refuses to come to heel, and Russia and China are making increasing inroads to Central Asia, eastern Europe, Africa and South America. The neocon project is slowly unravelling, with Trump hopefully about to put it out of its misery. ..."
"... There are now more people in Washington who's job depends on finding more wars to fight than there are people employed to stop wars. This is the neocons fault, but its not the neocons project they are just useful idiots for the profiteers. ..."
"... I don't make a distinction between the neocons and the profiteers. The worst possible outcome from this neocon disaster would be for the profiteers, the rentiers, to be able to reconstitute their hold over society- or to hold onto it for that matter. What will it take, complete destruction of the biosphere for people to understand that cooperation is the only means of survival? ..."
"... Part of the problem with the U.S military is that the Army sees enemy #2 as the Air Force and Navy. Gotta get those dollars. Another problem is that the U.S fails at the oft quote dictum of Sun Tzu, know yourself and know your enemy. ..."
"... In America's defense they are great at logistics side of war. ..."
"... Generals and admirals are all adept politicians and bureaucrats. they have to be to get to that level in the structure. War-fighters, no so much, with few exceptions, https://fabiusmaximus.com/2008/01/14/millennium-challenge/ . ..."
"... It's long seemed to me one of the many failings of the species is that some of us produce wise counsel that actually looks to the horizon and beyond, like the fundamental questions articulated by Sun Tzu about whether to commit the peasants who pay for it to a prolonged foreign war with long supply lines that will bankrupt the nation - http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html . And then the idiot few that gain, psychically or monetarily, from conflict, blow that kind of fundamental test of wisdom off and "go to war" or more accurately "send other people to hack and blast each other while the senders get rich." ..."
"... So is it just the inevitable case that Empires rise up, loot, murder, grow the usual huge corrupt capitals and the militaries to support the looting and keep the mopes in line, and finally succumb to some kind of wasting disease where all the corruption and interest-seeking honeycombs and finally collapses the structure? Is there no other way for humans to organize, because so many of us have the drive to dominate and to grab all the pleasure and stuff we can get away with? ..."
"... I've grown up hearing commentaries that echo this one as relating to our foreign policy adventures since WWII, and if you take a results oriented approach, they're probably true. But having gone to school for foreign policy work and talking to people who were involved with the foreign policy apparatus (doing the leg work, not the people at the top who basically have no idea what they're doing), I've become more and more convinced that it's simply incompetence. ..."
"... I think that the people dictating policy are basically a bunch of Tom Friedmans, who are utterly convinced that their empirically wrong views about how policy is executed are correct. Look at Iraq in the aftermath. Not only did they get not understand that the Sunnis and Shia might not have the best of intentions towards each other, but US companies aren't even getting all the plum oil contracts. Now surely a country that guarantees the security of the Iraqi elite could ensure that it's own companies got the best deals? ..."
"... First and foremost the US is the greatest spender in weapons, and why does anyone spend in weapons if there is not plan to use them? The first objective is to use the weapons and avoid piling a dusting mountain of missiles, bombs, or any other kind of armament. Many wars are mainly the testing battlefields for new weaponry. ..."
"... Spreading fear might not be the best strategy but is has clearly been one of the main objectives in some cases, particularly Iraq. ..."
"... The best case of a president looking for an excuse to use the weapons and spread fear was G.W. Bush and Iraq v2.0. The fact that Bush excuses were clumsily manufactured and exposed without shame in the UN is a feature. It means: when we decide that we will attack you nothing will stop us. No democratic control and no international rules can stop us. ..."
"... The Bush Administration arrogantly assumed that all peoples are enough alike that they can be rescued the same way as Western Europeans were - after the Nazis were driven off. This premis was an epic error for the ages. The entire Washington establishment - to include the Pentagon - and the MSM went along with this premis. In many ways they STILL buy into it. ..."
"... You never read MSM articles questioning whether Iraqis or Afghans can buy into republican democracy. The assumption is that the whole world is waiting with baited breath to achieve this Western political-cultural ideal. ..."
"... The correct solution, in 2009, was to NOT expand Afghan operations. I spent many an hour arguing the folly of said expansion. It was inevitable that after any expansion there would be a massive draw down - which would destablize the Kabul government. ..."
"... Pull out of Syria entirely. Stop funding al Nusrah - which is an acknowledged branch of al Qaeda. Egypt has entered the conflict on the side of Assad, Iran and Russia, most recently. The "White Hats" are a fraud. ..."
"... US is caught in a typical occupation trap, where they want a subservient regime that is under their control. Subservient regimes are subservient because they lack a large power base and are dependent on their foreign backers. A subservient regime with a power base does not stay subservient for long, they quickly develop an independent streak at which point you have to overthrow them and install a different, weaker regime. ..."
"... Stabilizing a subservient regime with a weak power base requires US presence and boots on the ground. A subservient regime with a strong power base that can support itself quickly stops being subservient and has to be replaced. A "victory", where US troops would not be necessary for the regime support, means loss of control over the regime. ..."
"... So US is stuck in a loop. Political considerations force them to build up a regime to a point of independence, only to have to tear it down when it looks like it might go against American interests. US military takes the blame because they have to fight the latest insurgent group CIA built up to effect regime change. ..."
"... I would never gainsay that many technocratic, careerist general officers might be looking for ways to enhance their glory and bid up their asking price for CNN slots and board positions at Lockheed Martin. But the swamp you seek to drain has an apex predator; wealthy and powerful civilians. I seem to recall some generals, Eric Shinseki and Jay Garner come to mind, who tried to bring a little truth to power and avoid the biggest mistakes of the Iraq war. ..."
"... Eisenhower's prophecy has metastasized so deeply into the body politic, only a profound change in the views of the citizenry could possibly make a difference. Short of economic or military upheaval, it's hard to see how do we do this when our best paying jobs are strategically sprinkled across the country, making every procurement and every base sacrosanct to even the most liberal, libertarian or even peace-nick politicians? So, isn't the swamp much larger that the military officer corps? Drain this one part, and it would fill back in rather quickly if that was the main thrust of our attack on this nightmare. ..."
"... I suspect Trump is headed to the White House partly because a significant number of people concluded that social upheaval will be hastened by his administration, and that the consequences, whatever they may be, will be worth bearing so that we can rebuild on the ashes of the neoliberal/neoconservative era. ..."
"... Trump played the rubes about safety with his vitriolic Anti-Muslim rhetoric. Although Trump claimed not to want to continue the wars, I seriously doubt he'll do one damn thing to make improvements in this regard. ..."
"... Only Mussolini and Goering had a leg up on MacArthur regarding bling. ..."
"... Unfolding the Future of the Long War, a 2008 RAND Corporation report, was sponsored by the US Army Training and Doctrine Command's Army Capability Integration Centre. It set out US government policy options for prosecuting what it described as "the long war" against "adversaries" in "the Muslim world," who are "bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant Western dominance". ..."
"... Well, the US military's performance in WW1 and WW2, often against weak opposition, was less than stunning. They won their battles with massively superior firepower, for the most part. ..."
"... But the real problem does, indeed, lie in Washington; Accepting that the US strategy in Iraq, for example, was indeed to create a pliable, pro-western democratic state, it's not clear that there was actually much the military could do when it started to unravel because of the inherent stupidity of the idea. ..."
"... Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001, something like 370,000 combatants and noncombatants have been killed in the various theaters of operations where U.S. forces have been active. Although modest by twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvest of death is hardly trivial. ..."
"... A dozen terrorism scholars gave a wide range of answers when asked to estimate how many members there are, how the numbers have changed during al Qaeda's lifespan and how many countries the group operates in. Analysts put the core membership at anywhere from 200 to 1,000 ..."
"... Instead it was scaled up into stupid endless Perpetual War without achievable objectives. In retrospect divide $5T by 200-1,000 and consider how little it may have cost if 9/11 had been treated as a criminal act by non-state actors, instead of sticking our foot into the role of destabilizing other sovereign countries, killing /antagonizing the citizens and generally fking up their countries?? ..."
"... I think the US is falling into the old imperialist trap of thinking of these places as countries with capital cities and leaders recognized as such by the population. The British had that issue in the 1770s when they captured the capital(s) of the new US but the revolution didn't stop. External superpower (French) support was able to keep the resistance functioning and the British eventually gave up. Both of those superpowers kept duking it out on other battlefields for another 30 years. ..."
"... The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition of the Spanish Empire; total destruction of native culture and replacement with Roman forms. The places the Spanish controlled are still broken, so don't look for success in this endeavor anytime soon ..."
"... The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition of the Spanish Empire ..."
"... Say what you want about the British Empire, but they did leave behind functioning legal and political systems in most of the countries they controlled. In India's case, they also left them a common language since there are so many languages there. Many of the countries remained in the Commonwealth after independence which is something that none of the other colonial powers achieved. ..."
"... I think the key was the British focused on empire as an extension of commerce, not ideology (they already knew they were superior, so they didn't have to prove it, which allows for pragmatism). In the end, when it was clear that they couldn't hold on, they backed out more gracefully than many other empires. ..."
"... The military-industrial complex has perfected the art of putting parts of the design, manufacturing, testing, and deployment of these programs into just about Congressional District so that everybody wants their constituents to have a shot at one part of the trough. ..."
"... This is how empires fall. Asymmetrical economic and military warfare against entrenched bureaucracies and corruption. ..."
"... Sounds like the lament of an aging mafia don that's forgotten what he's talking about is illegal. "Why can't our generals pull off a good old-fashioned smash and grab like they used to? They must be incompetent!" ..."
"... So I don't think an old-fashioned smash & grab has been the goal for a long time. For decades (ever since WWII?) we've been trying to regime change our way to the goal of every Hollywood mad scientist and super-villian: everlasting world dominance. ..."
"... So while China and Russia aim for Eurasian integration, we're all about it's disintegration. We're also determined to keep the EU from ever threatening our dominance. South America is slipping the yoke, but we haven't given up. ..."
"... Here in the "Homeland" (genuflects), on the "home front," in the domestic "battle space," it's important to realize that when the Pentagon says "full-spectrum dominance," that means us, comrades. Wall-to-wall surveillance? Check. POTUS power to execute or disappear dissidents? Check. Torture enshrined in secret laws and the public mind? Check. ..."
"... Obama never renounced FSD. AFAIK it's still the strategy. Why doesn't the esteemed colonel frame his analysis in terms of our official defense posture? Are we any closer to FSD, or not? ..."
"... I'll be impressed when the colonel starts calling our wars crimes against humanity and for their immediate cessation and full reparations. "Moar better generals" will not succeed at accomplishing a basically insane strategy. Until then, I'll file Bacevich under "modified limited hangout." ..."
"... Agreed. I was surprised, too. Of course, it's the working class children in the flyover states who join the military and go to war, and come back maimed or with PTSD to a rotten job market. So that may have been politically astute on Trump's part and, if so, good for him. ..."
"... Let's be brutally frank. The US both wants an empire, but also wants to pretend it is encouraging democracy everywhere. Objectives where the result is deceitful and duplicitous behavior. Ask the Indians about the methods, or the beneficiaries of the "Monroe Doctrine." The British wanted an empire. A simple objective. If you are not England, you are a colony, and we, the English, make the rules. At the heart of American activities is a kernel of deceit. Self determination for people, but only if you do what we say. The kernel of deceit poisons every walk of life connected to Washington. Every single one. ..."
"... The US is called the empire of chaos. It could also be called the empire of Deceit. Do as we say, but we are not taking any responsibility for you if you do what we say. Don't do what we say, and we will fund your opposition until they stuff a dagger up you ass. ..."
"... Think about Democrats using identity politics to claim religious fervor and war used to show being strong on defense. With both political parties using corruption to align power and control at home and abroad. Choosing your enemies carefully, for you will become them. ..."
"... The US military was the first part of the government to be turned into a business, the first neo-liberal institution created in America. The real problem is that the US military is run by managers and not soldiers. The Germans used to make fun of the British Army in WWI by calling it an army of lions led by donkeys. The US military is an army of lions led by managers. ..."
"... If Andrew is looking for a denouement to the Military Industrial complex then one need look no further than the British empire specifically what made it shrink and shrivel very rapidly. WWI and WWII. The decimation of the economy and the inability to keep spending money to maintain empire is what reversed the entire machine. It will be the same with the US as well. ..."
President-elect Donald Trump's message for the nation's senior military leadership is ambiguously
unambiguous. Here is he on 60 Minutes just days after winning the election.
Trump: "We have some great generals. We have great generals."
Lesley Stahl: "You said you knew more than the generals about ISIS."
Trump: "Well, I'll be honest with you, I probably do because look at the job they've done. OK,
look at the job they've done. They haven't done the job."
In reality, Trump, the former reality show host, knows next to nothing about ISIS, one of many
gaps in his education that his impending encounter with actual reality is likely to fill. Yet
when it comes to America's generals, our president-to-be is onto something. No doubt our three-
and four-star officers qualify as "great" in the sense that they mean well, work hard, and are altogether
fine men and women. That they have not "done the job," however, is indisputable - at least if their
job is to bring America's wars to a timely and successful conclusion.
Trump's unhappy verdict - that the senior U.S. military leadership doesn't know how to win - applies
in spades to the two principal conflicts of the post-9/11 era: the Afghanistan War, now in its 16th
year, and the Iraq War, launched in 2003 and (after a brief hiatus) once more grinding on.
Yet the verdict applies equally to lesser theaters of conflict, largely overlooked by the American
public, that in recent years have engaged the attention of U.S. forces, a list that would include
conflicts in Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
Granted, our generals have demonstrated an impressive aptitude for moving pieces around on a dauntingly
complex military chessboard. Brigades, battle groups, and squadrons shuttle in and out of various
war zones, responding to the needs of the moment. The sheer immensity of the enterprise across
the Greater Middle East and northern Africa - the
sorties flown ,
munitions expended , the seamless deployment and redeployment of thousands of troops over thousands
of miles, the vast stockpiles of material positioned, expended, and continuously resupplied - represents
a staggering achievement. Measured by these or similar quantifiable outputs, America's military has
excelled. No other military establishment in history could have come close to duplicating the
logistical feats being performed year in, year out by the armed forces of the United States.
Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001, something like
370,000 combatants and noncombatants
have been killed in the various theaters of operations where U.S. forces have been active. Although
modest by twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvest of death is hardly trivial.
Yet in evaluating military operations, it's a mistake to confuse how much with how
well . Only rarely do the outcomes of armed conflicts turn on comparative statistics.
Ultimately, the one measure of success that really matters involves achieving war's political purposes.
By that standard, victory requires not simply the defeat of the enemy, but accomplishing the nation's
stated war aims, and not just in part or temporarily but definitively. Anything less constitutes
failure, not to mention utter waste for taxpayers, and for those called upon to fight, it constitutes
cause for mourning.
By that standard, having been "at war" for virtually the entire twenty-first century, the United
States military is still looking for its first win. And however strong the disinclination to
concede that Donald Trump could be right about anything, his verdict on American generalship qualifies
as apt.
A Never-Ending Parade of Commanders for Wars That Never End
That verdict brings to mind three questions. First, with Trump a rare exception, why have the
recurring shortcomings of America's military leadership largely escaped notice? Second, to
what degree does faulty generalship suffice to explain why actual victory has proven so elusive?
Third, to the extent that deficiencies at the top of the military hierarchy bear directly on the
outcome of our wars, how might the generals improve their game?
As to the first question, the explanation is quite simple: During protracted wars, traditional
standards for measuring generalship lose their salience. Without pertinent standards, there
can be no accountability. Absent accountability, failings and weaknesses escape notice.
Eventually, what you've become accustomed to seems tolerable. Twenty-first century Americans inured
to wars that never end have long since forgotten that bringing such conflicts to a prompt and successful
conclusion once defined the very essence of what generals were expected to do.
Senior military officers were presumed to possess unique expertise in designing campaigns and
directing engagements. Not found among mere civilians or even among soldiers of lesser rank,
this expertise provided the rationale for conferring status and authority on generals.
In earlier eras, the very structure of wars provided a relatively straightforward mechanism for
testing such claims to expertise. Events on the battlefield rendered harsh judgments, creating
or destroying reputations with brutal efficiency.
Back then, standards employed in evaluating generalship were clear-cut and uncompromising.
Those who won battles earned fame, glory, and the gratitude of their countrymen. Those who
lost battles got fired or were put out to pasture.
During the Civil War, for example, Abraham Lincoln did not need an advanced degree in strategic
studies to conclude that Union generals like John Pope, Ambrose Burnside, and Joseph Hooker didn't
have what it took to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia. Humiliating defeats sustained by
the Army of the Potomac at the Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville made that obvious
enough. Similarly, the victories Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman gained at Shiloh,
at Vicksburg, and in the Chattanooga campaign strongly suggested that here was the team to which
the president could entrust the task of bringing the Confederacy to its knees.
Today,
public drunkenness ,
petty corruption , or
sexual shenanigans with a subordinate might land generals in hot water. But as long as
they avoid egregious misbehavior, senior officers charged with prosecuting America's wars are largely
spared judgments of any sort. Trying hard is enough to get a passing grade.
With the country's political leaders and public conditioned to conflicts seemingly destined to
drag on for years, if not decades, no one expects the current general-in-chief in Iraq or Afghanistan
to bring things to a successful conclusion. His job is merely to manage the situation until
he passes it along to a successor, while duly adding to his collection of personal decorations and
perhaps advancing his career.
Today, for example, Army General John Nicholson commands U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan.
He's only the latest in a long line of senior officers to preside over that war, beginning with General
Tommy Franks in 2001 and continuing with Generals Mikolashek, Barno, Eikenberry, McNeill, McKiernan,
McChrystal, Petraeus, Allen, Dunford, and Campbell. The title carried by these officers changed
over time. So, too, did the specifics of their "mission" as Operation Enduring Freedom evolved
into Operation Freedom's Sentinel. Yet even as expectations slipped lower and lower, none of
the commanders rotating through Kabul delivered. Not a single one has, in our president-elect's
concise formulation, "done the job." Indeed, it's increasingly difficult to know what that
job is, apart from preventing the Taliban from quite literally toppling the government.
In Iraq, meanwhile, Army Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend currently serves as the - count 'em
- ninth American to command U.S. and coalition forces in that country since the George W. Bush administration
ordered the invasion of 2003. The first in that line, (once again) General Tommy Franks, overthrew
the Saddam Hussein regime and thereby broke Iraq. The next five, Generals Sanchez, Casey, Petraeus,
Odierno, and Austin, labored for eight years to put it back together again.
At the end of 2011, President Obama declared that they had done just that and terminated the U.S.
military occupation. The Islamic State soon exposed Obama's claim as specious when its militants
put a U.S.-trained Iraqi army to flight and annexed
large swathes of that country's territory. Following in the footsteps of his immediate
predecessors Generals James Terry and Sean MacFarland, General Townsend now shoulders the task of
trying to restore Iraq's status as a more or less genuinely sovereign state. He directs what
the Pentagon calls Operation Inherent Resolve, dating from June 2014, the follow-on to Operation
New Dawn (September 2010-December 2011), which was itself the successor to Operation Iraqi Freedom
(March 2003-August 2010).
When and how Inherent Resolve will conclude is difficult to forecast. This much we can,
however, say with some confidence: with the end nowhere in sight, General Townsend won't be its last
commander. Other generals are waiting in the wings with their own careers to polish.
As in Kabul, the parade of U.S. military commanders through Baghdad will continue.
For some readers, this listing of mostly forgotten names and dates may have a soporific effect.
Yet it should also drive home Trump's point. The United States may today have the world's most
powerful and capable military - so at least we are constantly told. Yet the record shows that
it does not have a corps of senior officers who know how to translate capability into successful
outcomes.
Draining Which Swamp?
That brings us to the second question: Even if commander-in-chief Trump were somehow able
to identify modern day equivalents of Grant and Sherman to implement his war plans, secret or otherwise,
would they deliver victory?
On that score, we would do well to entertain doubts. Although senior officers charged with
running recent American wars have not exactly covered themselves in glory, it doesn't follow that
their shortcomings offer the sole or even a principal explanation for why those wars have yielded
such disappointing results. The truth is that some wars aren't winnable and shouldn't be fought.
So, yes, Trump's critique of American generalship possesses merit, but whether he knows it or
not, the question truly demanding his attention as the incoming commander-in-chief isn't: Who should
I hire (or fire) to fight my wars? Instead, far more urgent is: Does further war promise to
solve any of my problems?
One mark of a successful business executive is knowing when to cut your losses. It's also the
mark of a successful statesman. Trump claims to be the former. Whether his putative business
savvy will translate into the world of statecraft remains to be seen. Early signs are not promising.
As a candidate, Trump
vowed to "defeat radical Islamic terrorism," destroy ISIS, "decimate al-Qaeda," and "starve funding
for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah." Those promises imply a significant escalation of what Americans
used to call the Global War on Terrorism.
Toward that end, the incoming administration may well revive some aspects of the George W. Bush
playbook, including repopulating the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and "if it's
so important to the American people," reinstituting torture. The Trump administration will
at least consider re-imposing sanctions on countries like Iran. It may aggressively exploit
the offensive potential of cyber-weapons, betting that America's cyber-defenses will hold.
Yet President Trump is also likely to double down on the use of conventional military force.
In that regard,
his promise to "quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS" offers a hint of what is to
come. His appointment of the uber-hawkish Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as his national security
adviser and his rumored selection of retired Marine Corps General James ("Mad Dog") Mattis as defense
secretary suggest that he means what he says. In sum, a Trump administration seems unlikely
to reexamine the conviction that the problems roiling the Greater Middle East will someday, somehow
yield to a U.S.-imposed military solution. Indeed, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary,
that conviction will deepen, with genuinely ironic implications for the Trump presidency.
In the immediate wake of 9/11, George W. Bush concocted a fantasy of American soldiers liberating
oppressed Afghans and Iraqis and thereby "
draining the swamp " that served to incubate anti-Western terrorism. The results achieved
proved beyond disappointing, while the costs exacted in terms of lives and dollars squandered were
painful indeed. Incrementally, with the passage of time, many Americans concluded that perhaps
the swamp most in need of attention was not on the far side of the planet but much closer at hand
- right in the imperial city nestled alongside the Potomac River.
To a very considerable extent, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, preferred candidate of the establishment,
because he advertised himself as just the guy disgruntled Americans could count on to drain that
swamp.
Yet here's what too few of those Americans appreciate, even today: war created that swamp in the
first place. War empowers Washington. It centralizes. It provides a rationale for
federal authorities to accumulate and exercise new powers. It makes government bigger and more
intrusive. It lubricates the machinery of waste, fraud, and abuse that causes tens of billions
of taxpayer dollars to vanish every year. When it comes to sustaining the swamp, nothing works
better than war.
Were Trump really intent on draining that swamp - if he genuinely seeks to "Make America Great
Again" - then he would extricate the United States from war. His
liquidation of Trump University, which was to higher education what Freedom's Sentinel and Inherent
Resolve are to modern warfare, provides a potentially instructive precedent for how to proceed.
But don't hold your breath on that one. All signs indicate that, in one fashion or another,
our combative next president will perpetuate the wars he's inheriting. Trump may fancy that,
as a veteran of Celebrity Apprentice (but not of military service), he possesses a special
knack for spotting the next Grant or Sherman. But acting on that impulse will merely replenish
the swamp in the Greater Middle East along with the one in Washington. And soon enough, those
who elected him with expectations of seeing the much-despised establishment dismantled will realize
that they've been had.
Which brings us, finally, to that third question: To the extent that deficiencies at the top of
the military hierarchy do affect the outcome of wars, what can be done to fix the problem?
The most expeditious approach: purge all currently serving three- and four-star officers; then,
make a precondition for promotion to those ranks confinement in a reeducation camp run by Iraq and
Afghanistan war amputees, with a curriculum designed by
Veterans for Peace . Graduation
should require each student to submit an essay reflecting on these words of wisdom from U.S. Grant
himself: "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent
the drawing of the sword."
True, such an approach may seem a bit draconian. But this is no time for half-measures - as even
Donald Trump may eventually recognize.
As much s I have appreciated Bacevich's views over the past decade, my reaction to this is
that he's asking the wrong questions. Just what would a "victory" in these imperial interventions
look like? Does he really think our military is protecting our nation? I don't.
I believe his point is narrower. Victory in Afghanistan and Iraq would (in the eyes of the
establishment) have involved the pacification of those countries with pro-capitalist and pro-western
nominally democratic governments in charge (i.e. puppets). That is what the explicit and implicit
aim of those invasions was to be. The military was charged with achieving those ends, and they
failed (as they've failed elsewhere). And yet, even by the criteria set by the establishment,
there has been zero accountability.
And this is the double failure of Washington. You might give them some credit if they were
competent imperialists. But they are the worst of all worlds. They are reckless imperialists who
can't even achieve their own stated aims with a modicum of competence. Real imperialists of the
past would be rolling around laughing at this lot.
Thank you. Well said. You are right to make the distinction between competent, incompetent
and real imperialists. My parents came to the UK from a colony in the mid-1960s and talk about
the colonial officials they came across. It was the same with my grandparents. I have come across
the aspiring neo-cons on the make (and on the take) in the City, marking time until they can be
parachuted into a safe seat.
Few, if any, speak a foreign language and / or spent much time abroad.
They give the impression of playing chess from Tory Central Office or some "think tank", but with
other countries and lives of people they know nothing, much less care, about. As we watched Obama
being crowned in 2009, one (an aspiring Tory MP and former central office staffer) forecasted
that Obama would go down as the worst president in history and added that Bush would go down as
one of the greats. I made my excuses and went home.
They're not imperialists, they're corporatists. Graft is the object, and given that construction
companies like Halliburton and mercs like Xe don't bankroll Ds, and since bombing campaigns are
easy to keep up/out of the news, the money has now shifted to drones.
As such, they're not failing, except insofar as they are losing access to markets. And that isn't
really the case either, since the iraqi don't form a market that matters; whereas the notional
'rebuilding effort' - which did provide opportunities for looting - is/was pretty much over anyway,
once it became impossible to deny it "failed".
I think they are imperialists in the sense that, as William Appleman Williams and others have
argued, their primary orienting goal is to extend and sustain the US dominance of a world market.
If you read what US foreign policy and military planners were saying in after WW2, that's an inescapable
conclusion. Your focus on the corporation takes as a given what those planners have felt they
need to strategically and militarily secure. Bacevich consistently avoids this issue and so ends
up promoting a naive and implicitly hopeful view of US motives and the flexibility with which
they can be pursued.
It's really quite something to go back and read Dean Acheson testifying to a congressional
committee that, unlike the Soviet Union, the US requires steady expansion of the world market
to survive. He sounds like Rosa Luxemburg.
The US is a nation of racketeers, which are perfecting the corruption of services into means
of converting tax revenue into private profits. Some of these services are in fact essential,
all have been at least until recently unassailable regardless of merit. Examples are housing,
education, health care, private transportation and of course "national security". The rackets
trace back to the exceptional US economic circumstances of WW2, and the leading racket was well
established at the end of the Eisenhower presidency (his CYA address notwithstanding).
For the "self-licking ice-cream cone" of military/security/intelligence/public safety expenditures
to continue to grow exponentially, it is not only unnecessary for the tax-purchased services and
goods to be functional, let alone deliver results it is positively counterproductive. The question
is not whether any captured government institution is dysfunctional, the question is merely whether
and how the profitability it delivers to the "accounting control frauds" in charge of the incumbents
can be increased.
There are many aspects of this particular proud strain of dysfunction capitalism US weapon
exports, "foreign aid" to Israel or Saudi Arabia, support for proxy forces, actual direct expenditure
of armaments, and of course force modernization and extension are some of the many flavors. The
fuel cost alone for moving men and materiel "fuels" entire industries. It would not at all be
surprising to find that those 700 bases maintained and expanded are completely useless if
not even significant liabilities while at the same time improving the bottom line of many suppliers.
PMC's and the growing industry supporting ever-increasing logistical "needs" are another vector
of the disease. Terrorism, of course, and the market for global and domestic surveillance and
"public safety", is both a consequence and a pretext. The perfect racket produces its own justification
while profit shares increase and "product" cost decrease.
It is the privilege of the continental US that, wedged between two oceans, a colony of the
crown and a failed state, that it is largely insulated from the blowback of the various theaters
of war profiteering (this is, after all, the major advantage the national security racket has
over the competing domestic leeches). It stand to reason that the weaker the coupling to the fallout
from profitable dysfunction, the longer trends that cannot continue will.
Iraq 2003 might well have been the last time that any of the major industries involved had
any earnest intention to profit from the theater itself. Libya, Syria, Yemen etc. are in the main
write-offs, pretexts that open profit channels but not part of it. It is usually ignored that
the main issue China and Russia have with the US and its minion states is the abrogation of the
concept of sovereign nation stages, going all the way back to Clinton's interventions in the Balkans.
By accident or design, US foreign policy is one of scorched earth, preferring failed states to
nations capable of resistance. This, too, is a consequence of that "splendid insulation".
Thank you, b., for saying clearly what so many of us perceive dimly through the fog of propaganda,
and struggle to name.
Next question: is there a prayer of catalyzing a healthier political economy, or do we ordinary
people just live until we die, as best we can manage? Maybe "judiciously studying the actions"
and talking learnedly about them among our percipient selves, until even that illusion of action
is finally blocked?
"In the end, he found he could not help himself: He loved Big Brother."
The truth is that some wars aren't winnable and shouldn't be fought.
Success in any enterprise requires the definition of a goal. I believe that the goal of U.S.
military action in MENA is two-fold: display fealty to Israel and the kings of the Arabian Peninsula;
and to grow the corporate coffers of the MIC here at home. Defined in that way, the U.S. military
has "hit it outta da park." Winning? Winning was a pipe dream of the likes of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
Cheney knew better and took GWB along for a ride.
Let us pray that President Trump's small mind and loose tongue substantially degrades the willingness
of the U.S.'s partners to continue to play along. May he make America un-great again. Amen.
In the US today, we have raised a whole generation of kids where "winning matters not." To
that extent we, and our generals whether imperialistic or corporatistic, are all "special snowflakes"
that deserve "participation trophy's" so we don't cry and act out over not winning. I say give
all our general's another star for starting and participating in wars that can't be won to begin
with. Where participation and not winning is the objective. Three cheers: hip, hip, hooray!
I am highly suspicious that publicly stated goals of the wars were the actual targets. My take
is that the actual goal has always been to keep those places in chaos; on US terms and under its
control. with a safe US military base to punch those second-rate nations if necessary; By that
measure, I believe both the Iraq and Afghan invasions were a success but they cannot pat each
other's backs publicly.
However, they must now admit that they did not think the case of Iraq through, and the case
of Syria is a complete failure, raising the stature of Russia to a super power again, while slowly
but surely losing influence on Iraq and Egypt. But, that, arguably, could not have been realistically
expected of the generals of the time to predict.
I think that may have been his point, albeit delivered obliquely, as in his statement that
"some wars should not be fought"; his quote from Grant, "There never was a time when, in my opinion,
some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword", as well as elsewhere in the
piece.
Grant's rise from drunk who couldn't get a job in 1861 and W Scott's efforts to recruit Bobby
Lee, a guy who was out of the army for years by that point, are indications the general class
was never particularly competent.
I think you need to re-read the post again. He is asking the right questions and provides a
history lesson besides. The beginning paragraphs could be interpreted as the standard, we need
victory fare, but all is designed to lead to his final prescription for action- all the while
being very diplomatic and appreciative to those who serve in the military.
Drain the swamp indeed, extricate the military from our national misadventures and retire the
top brass more intent on career advancement that the true needs of the nation. Problems solved
and we can move on as a nation. Will the world fall apart, if true men and women of honor step
forward, I highly doubt it.
Pretty radical stuff actually, but something that resonates with many people, people without
a voice. Change will come from within the military, and it is refreshing to hear words of sanity
form those inside the military system-Tulsi Gabbard for one.
Could Trump shake up the gridlock, we shall see. Like a toxic mine tailing pit, once the retaining
walls are breached, the effluence tends to spill out very quickly.
Silly question: Does the fault lie in our generals or in our commander in chief? Which leads
to another silly question: Who does our commander in chief answer to?
The generals seem to be only as effective as the policy they are prescribed to carry out. They
ultimately answer to the President. So if they're ordered to carry out an impossible task they
will obviously fail and they will kick the can down the road to save their own reputations.
There
isn't too much of an incentive to win if you're a careerist either which many of them are since
the military is a giant welfare program/bureaucracy largely based on licking boots to advance.
It might be nice to add another accolade to that fat stack of attendance ribbons on their chests
but that's all it is. Also, even if you were super serious about winning the war look at what
happened to Shinseki when he clashed with the civilian leadership over the numbers of troops needed
to pacify Iraq post-war. He was marginalized and finally canned altogether.
Yes, the good doctor should resolutely shoulder the burden of "opposition party spokesman"
and return to the fray. If we all took every slight and injury offered online to heart, there
would be nary a rational word communicated, and, we would have much recourse to the suppressed
Rogers Profanisaurus.
Besides, Upstate New York must be cold now, and the Professor spending a lot of time being housebound.
I stood in James' corner once or twice as he started lashing out, as I thought he was just
having a few bad days. It went on and I simply ran out of patience with him when he wrote his
farewell screed and signed off with:
James P. Levy , Ph.D. FRHistS, a man who never hid behind a goddamned nom de plume
It will be interesting to hear from readers if they have colleagues who are former service
men and women. There has been an influx in the City since the crisis, but they were always there
in fewer numbers. Some thrive in admin / COO roles, but many are frustrated and last no more than
a couple of years. Dad retired from the Royal Air Force in March 1991 after 25 years. He found
it difficult to settle in civilian life (employed as a doctor at St Mary's hospital in west London)
and left at the end of 1991 for a development project in southern Africa (a year or so of being
a middle class welfare junkie masquerading as a Foreign Office adviser) and twenty years working
for Persian Gulf despots around MENA.
I'm a Vietnam vet and I did respond but it has been ignored as usual. The point of my post
was that the generals do what they are ordered to do by the commander in chief and the problem
lies with whoever that is at any given time. From that flows the logical point that we elect the
commander in chief and don't really pay much attention to what he orders. The fault lies with
the electorate. Bacevich has made the point (as have others) that when the draft was eliminated
voters no longer had skin in the game and became ambivalent which is why the founding fathers
set up the system with the citizen soldier as a cornerstone principle. The president at any given
time just does what he wants and the only possible means of accountability is through the voting
booth. Our wars last stopped when the populace had skin in the game and made it extremely clear
to Nixon that we wanted an end. We have met the enemy and he is us.
The fault lies partly with the electorate, but also with Congress. For more than a decade,
Charlie Rangel has been introducing bills to reinstate the draft. Crickets from Congress.
I'm a former member of the Selective Service Board, and yes, they still exist. A draft in order
to be effective, cannot offer deferments (a la Dick Cheney) and still be fair. Only until those
who order the wars have family members (including women) subject to a draft, will we cease our
idiotic imperialist impulses.
While all you say is true, 40 years of corporate evolution in the political sphere has changed
the equation. As the last election cycle has shown, any attempt to alter current relationships
will need political activism intended to change the system not just gaining office to make slight
course corrections. We as a people are too far off course for that. The Vietnam era was a turning
point and business interests mobilized to never let that fiasco- people power- take root again.
They have been very successful in their mission, but now they have to deal with the problem of
an unwanted and underused population. The unemployable if you will.
Re-instituting the draft is no longer necessary and would be counterproductive to the corporate
mission. As long as our current standing army can be paid off, why bother with a draft, it is
no longer necessary. You avoid the military coup problem also. Our military continues to be bought
off and as long as the economic incentives supporting an excessively large military remain unchallenged,
the draft is unnecessary. Unnecessary from the maintenance of corporate power that is. Corporate
power must be minimized first, then talk of a draft will make more sense. What values are learned
in the military today? USA has ben turned into a corporate brand.
Being poor, unemployable, or one illness away form such a fate is the new skin in the game.
While national service is a force that must be worked into our social responsibilities, its true
meaning for strengthening and protecting the people has been subverted into a tool for corruption.
Voices within the military that call for a return to the ideal of a citizen soldier instead of
a mercenary warrior is what I think Bacevich has in mind.
Andrew Bacevich, as usual, writes a great article. But Grant and Sherman benefited from having a war with a clear goal: destroy the Confederate
army and its government. I hesitate to call anything happening with the US in the Middle East or North Africa or SE
Asia a "war" of that nature. There are no clear objectives. There are no criteria for an end of
the conflict.
Instead, this looks a whole lot more like the North's occupation of the South during Reconstruction.
We all know how that ended: the North had to pull itself out after an economic depression, more
or less leading to a reign of terror through Jim Crow.
The United States is trying to do Reconstruction in a whole lot of spheres and is failing at
that because it's generally an impossible enterprise.
I would disagree that there were no clear objectives. The objective was to turn Iraq and Afghanistan
and Libya, etc., in to countries like Egypt or Jordan or Indonesia weakened pro-western (or
at least western-dependent) puppets with a sheen of democratic respectability, where US corporations
could roam free. I don't think there is any need to read anything else into the objectives that
is the 'ideal' for the neocons, and that was their objective, both stated and unstated.
You make a good, concise case for what the real objectives are for these unending expensive
wars. Of course, this level of clarity re these goals are seldom stated to the populace at large.
Rather we're mostly fed bullshit about terrrrists and being kept "safe" and other noodleheaded
claptrap.
Given your definition, however, with which I agree, the Generals have still FAILED. And again,
where's the accountability? There is none.
Trump plans to give himself and all the other Oligarchs, and the corporations giant tax cuts.
There will be some in the middle class who experience a tax increase. Yet we're supposed to bloat
the MIC budget by some huge amount for what purpose?? So Trump can build hotels, golf courses
and casinos in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq? Not being all that snarky.
Yes, as I said above, the neocons objective have been an abject failure. They display incompetence
at all levels. And yet nobody pays the price. And the fact that the neocons don't try to fire
the generals who failed (as numerous political leaders in the past have done) is a reflection
of both their incompetence and the fact that the wars have become the ultimate in self licking
ice creams.
While a plan might not be 100% successful, I don't see how you characterize the neocon program
an abject failure. It is chugging along just fine. If waste and chaos are states of being that
directly benefit your program, they are probably 90% successful.
If war is a racket, then the good times roll on and talking about failed generals being replaced,
or accountability will be served by getting hold of better generals, those sentiments must make
them chuckle when they are discussing their private positions. Win/Win for the neocons.
Ordinary people make the mistake of believing that the current crop of leaders have their interests
in mind at all. They do not. If Clintons Public/Private mumbo jumbo didn't clear you of that thinking
I don't know what will.
The proper way to think about these things is the neocon plan is succeeding wonderfully but
they are truly too short sighted- i.e. stupid in the long term- to understand the consequences.
They understand short term profit completely and how to dispense physical power but little else.
Consequences and payback are externalized in their world. If you live in the moment, who cares
about the future. As the illuminist Karl Rove once stated, "We're an empire now, and when we act,
we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will -
we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things
will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what
we do."
Well, people don't stay passive actors forever. Just as nature cannot absorb carelessness forever.
A day of reckoning will come- it alway does. Failure is in the mind of the beholder. It depends
on perspective. As the neocons double, tripple, quadruple down on their policies, they will be
able to ride the flaming mess into the ground. Think Clinton.
It is up to us- the sane- to realize the success of the neoliberal program and want out- or
off- or whatever phrase makes sense. In our wars of misadventure, it will be those in the military
that finally say enough is enough. If someone pulls that off, it would be viewed as the most courageous
act in decades.
In our wars of misadventure, it will be those in the military that finally say enough is
enough. If someone pulls that off, it would be viewed as the most courageous act in decades.
30 years in lockup for Chelsea Manning is a warning for those, I suspect, who want to say "enough
is enough." I also believe that your ability to move up the hierarchy to make those decisions
to keep fighting is determined by your willingness to continue to see through the neoliberal project.
I disagree to the extent that the ideological neocons had a very clearly stated and unambiguous
strategic purpose re-engineering the world as America's corporate playground, with any possible
competitor (i.e. Russia and China) firmly penned in. This meant replacing all the mid-size States
which were still refusing to be part of the Washington Consensus.
Its no secret or mystery about
what they were seeking. In this, they have failed Afghanistan remains in chaos, Iraq is more
Iran controlled than US controlled, Iran still refuses to come to heel, and Russia and China are
making increasing inroads to Central Asia, eastern Europe, Africa and South America. The neocon
project is slowly unravelling, with Trump hopefully about to put it out of its misery.
The issue of war profiteering is something that I see as something entirely different. What
the neocons failed to anticipate was that their Clash of Civilisations would result in a hugely
powerful military-industrial process which has become self replicating. There are now more people
in Washington who's job depends on finding more wars to fight than there are people employed to
stop wars. This is the neocons fault, but its not the neocons project they are just useful idiots
for the profiteers.
I don't make a distinction between the neocons and the profiteers. The worst possible outcome
from this neocon disaster would be for the profiteers, the rentiers, to be able to reconstitute
their hold over society- or to hold onto it for that matter. What will it take, complete destruction
of the biosphere for people to understand that cooperation is the only means of survival?
While I agree with what you are saying, if desiring a peaceful world is on your agenda, then
every effort must be made to not allow the rentiers to take the position of, well now, we overstepped
somewhat, will do better next time.
Making neat divisions is the reason humanity is in the predicament we find ourselves in the
first place. We have dissected the whole into so many parts, it is no longer recognizable.
Modernity has been a dissecting force- a unifying force is needed.
I agree with so much of the analysis here. But why do people insist still (especially given
his recent appointments) that Trump has any interest at all in putting "it" out of our misery?
Color me skeptical.
Hey Kim, as RUKidding says, I wouldn't argue that those are clear objectives, because the generals
that are being talked about above aren't being told up front that they are working toward that
goal.
Don't get me wrong, I think you're exactly right about those being the objectives.
Those are the ultimate political goals and the ends of the wars - but generals are never given
them as objectives in this form. Concisely, the objectives of any general are threefold:
1) destroy the enemy forces;
2) break their will to fight;
3) control the territory under dispute.
They learned that at the military academy - after all, these were the fundamental principles
articulated by Carl von Clausewitz almost 200 years ago. Well, in those purely military terms, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Syria are
total failures.
Enemy forces destroyed? They seem inexhaustible.
Territory controlled? Those countries have basically been "no-go" areas ever since war started.
Breaking the enemy's will to fight? Mmmwaaahahahahaha.
Trump is correct on this point: job not done. At all.
Glad you brought up Carl von Clausewitz. I remember the Newsweek article when Gen. Tommy Franks
said there were 9 centers of gravity in Iraq. The article took this as some type of wisdom. It
was clear that Franks hadn't even read the Cliff notes version of On War as there is only one
center of gravity according to Carl von C in which you focus your effort on.
Probably one reason when Franks was put on the Outback Steakhouse board of directors it did
so poorly and was pulled out of Canada. He was a great strategist after all /sarc.
Part of the problem with the U.S military is that the Army sees enemy #2 as the Air Force and
Navy. Gotta get those dollars. Another problem is that the U.S fails at the oft quote dictum of Sun Tzu, know yourself and
know your enemy.
The U.S seems to create the enemy they would like to fight rather than the one
that's actually there and as a nation has no sense of self anymore. They don't understand their
limitations or even their strengths it seems. It seems the Pentagon and the Gov. thinks throwing
money equals effectiveness. I'd argue that the unlimited money is the problem. Actual innovation
often stems from being limited in some way. Mother is the necessity of invention and all that.
Look the German assault teams that were born out of desperation in the final days of WWI. This
concept helped tremendously in WW2 and it wasn't unlimited money that created them.
In America's defense they are great at logistics side of war.
To further this thread as to why the generals have failed:
If the point of these wars is to install a pro-Western style (aka USA business friendly) society
and government, a point to which I agree is the reason for the US's fighting, then how, in God's
name!, are you going to do that when the point of a military is to destroy things and kill people?
(words taken from the cover of DoD's documents). The US military is not to build things and help
people! The generals are asked to do what their own training prevents them and those they direct
from doing.
Anyone remember this 2010 bit of PowerPoint-ia? "'When we understand that slide, we'll have
won the war:' US generals given baffling PowerPoint presentation to try to explain Afghanistan
mess,"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269463/Afghanistan-PowerPoint-slide-Generals-left-baffled-PowerPoint-slide.html
(And note the Brass Balls of the contractor, PA Knowledge Group Ltd, claiming a COPYRIGHT
over this obvious work-for-hire.) This kind of stuff is the daily grist of the strategic/tactical
mill that grinds out body counts, serial deployments in search of missions, and the endless floods
of corrupt cash, destabilizing weapons and internal and external subterfuges, along with a lot
of wry humor and a large helping of despair for the Troops and the mope civilians who "stand too
close to Unlawful Enema Combatants ".
It's long seemed to me one of the many failings of the species is that some of us produce wise
counsel that actually looks to the horizon and beyond, like the fundamental questions articulated
by Sun Tzu about whether to commit the peasants who pay for it to a prolonged foreign war with
long supply lines that will bankrupt the nation -
http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
. And then the idiot few that gain, psychically or monetarily, from conflict, blow that kind
of fundamental test of wisdom off and "go to war" or more accurately "send other people to hack
and blast each other while the senders get rich."
There's a fundamental problem that to me gets too little attention: What the Empire is doing
is an entirely Barmicide game.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/barmecide
Our rulers here in the Empire are pretty good at the procurement, deployment and logistical
mechanics of Milo Minderbinder's complex Enterprise, the "war as a racket" thing, the extracting
of public wealth to build shiny or stealthy or smart "systems." But as Bacevitch notes, they get
to completely escape from the consequences of Only-tool-in-the-box monomania, of applying the
big hammer of "War" to the subtle tasks of creating and maintaining a survivable space for the
species. Which patently is not the "goal" in any event. And never answered, as pointed out, is
the daring question of "what is the goal/are the goals, and what actions or refraining from actions
are likely to get there?"
The talk about "asymmetric warfare" is mostly whining about little wogs who dare to adopt the
wisdoms of other ambitious and thoughtful humans, like the Afghans and, yes, even ISIS, on how
to defeat (within the terms of the game they are playing and understand that the Empire does NOT
understand the terrain or the rules or moves) invaders and colonialists and even corporatists.
Though the latter are often victorious in the after-conflict processes, if you can't clobber your
enemy, corrupt him! works too.) There are wheels within wheels, of course, and "we mopes" in the
Imperial homeland are too busy eking out a survival locally to even try to contemplate let alone
understand the complexities of even the Middle East, let alone the Great Game being played out
again with Russia and China and the aggressive and Teutonic bosses of the Eurozone All while
the "defence" establishment figures out ever more exotic ways to kill humans, via code (genetic
and cyber) and "smart weapons" like autonomous killing robots "on land, in air, at sea "
So is it just the inevitable case that Empires rise up, loot, murder, grow the usual huge corrupt
capitals and the militaries to support the looting and keep the mopes in line, and finally succumb
to some kind of wasting disease where all the corruption and interest-seeking honeycombs and finally
collapses the structure? Is there no other way for humans to organize, because so many of us have
the drive to dominate and to grab all the pleasure and stuff we can get away with?
I've grown up hearing commentaries that echo this one as relating to our foreign policy adventures
since WWII, and if you take a results oriented approach, they're probably true. But having gone
to school for foreign policy work and talking to people who were involved with the foreign policy
apparatus (doing the leg work, not the people at the top who basically have no idea what they're
doing), I've become more and more convinced that it's simply incompetence.
I think that the people dictating policy are basically a bunch of Tom Friedmans, who are utterly
convinced that their empirically wrong views about how policy is executed are correct. Look at
Iraq in the aftermath. Not only did they get not understand that the Sunnis and Shia might not
have the best of intentions towards each other, but US companies aren't even getting all the plum
oil contracts. Now surely a country that guarantees the security of the Iraqi elite could ensure
that it's own companies got the best deals?
I think the most probable explanation is that they believed their own propaganda. They believed
that the Iraqis wanted to be a liberal democracy with a free market, and that US firms would obviously
be the most competitive in a bid for the oil contracts. People like Kerry believe in the ideas
of human rights and war crimes, condemning the Russians for bombing Aleppo even though we do the
exact same thing with a ever so slightly less flimsy justification.
Yes, again, good points, esp in re to the fact that US companies aren't even getting the plum
oil contracts. We were told by feckless Cheney via W that there would be that magical mythical
Iraqi "Oil Dividend" that would not only pay for the War on Iraq essentially giving us back
the money we spent on it (conveniently ignoring the collateral damage of many US combatant deaths,
and many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizen deaths, but who cares about that piddling, trifling
detail) as well as getting more besides.
Eh? And then what? Well that Dick, Cheney, got very very rich offa US taxpayer dollars, and
no doubt some other Oligarchs did as well. But we never ever got paid back for our "investment"
in "freeing" the Iraqi's from their oppressor, Saddam.
And that salient detail was flushed down the memory hole, and duly noted, that at least the
Oligarchs did learn ONE lesson from that bullshit, which is to never ever again even go so far
as to make a promise that the hapless proles in the USA will ever see one thin dime from these
foreign misadventures.
I can't talk from personal experience but I've read plenty of foreign policy publications of
the type taken seriously by academics and politicians, and I'd agree with you. Some are laughably
stupid, they don't know the first thing about the countries they are talking about. It wasn't
just Bush jnr in 2002 who didn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, I strongly suspect
that many 'experts' consulted had only the faintest knowledge of what they were dealing with.
There are a scary number of second and third rate intellects roaming around sharing their 'knowledge'.
I think the standard textbook for this should be Graham Greenes
'The Quiet American'
. I've always been amazed at the prescience of that book (he pretty much predicted the arc
of the Vietnam War in 1959), but I always think of the main character, Pyle, when I see yet another
Middle Eastern mess. Pyle is a generally well meaning young man with far too much power, who is
convinced by some academic that he has the key to sorting out the whole Vietnam mess. Needless
to say, lots of innocents die because of his half baked ideas. The establishment is full of Pyles,
although many I think are not quite so well meaning.
I would like to agree with you, but I don't. First and foremost the US is the greatest spender
in weapons, and why does anyone spend in weapons if there is not plan to use them? The first objective
is to use the weapons and avoid piling a dusting mountain of missiles, bombs, or any other kind
of armament. Many wars are mainly the testing battlefields for new weaponry. For that reason,
having endless localized wars can be quite useful. Besides using it, the second objective is spread
fear. I have it, I have the will to use it, and I am well trained. Spreading fear might not be
the best strategy but is has clearly been one of the main objectives in some cases, particularly
Iraq.
The best case of a president looking for an excuse to use the weapons and spread fear was G.W.
Bush and Iraq v2.0. The fact that Bush excuses were clumsily manufactured and exposed without
shame in the UN is a feature. It means: when we decide that we will attack you nothing will stop
us. No democratic control and no international rules can stop us.
'why does anyone spend in weapons if there is not plan to use them?'
And yet the U.S.'s recent, most stupendously expensive weapons systems are unusable.
Literally , they cannot be used for most practical purposes in combat.
The F-35, for instance, has trouble flying and would be bested by air fighters of the previous
generation in combat. The Littoral Combat Ship's aluminum superstructure would burn down to the
waterline if ever one were hit by a missile (among other problems). And there are other projects
that are almost equally ridiculous.
The point is, of course, that with their cost overruns and sheer unusability, these projects
continue precisely because they're stupendously profitable. The American economic system is utterly
dependent on such military Keynesianism, which is a principle means of redistribution from rich
U.S. states to small ones. And consequently we live in a world reminiscent of the world of useless
wepfash designers - weapons fashions designers - envisaged by Philip K. Dick's The Zap Gun.
One takeaway may be that the U.S. can either have the largest level of military Keynesianism
in history or win its wars. It apparently cannot do both.
Remember when Trump threatened to fire a bunch of generals? That really upset a lot of people
in Washington. Replacing a flag officer is a very complicated affair they have a whole rotation
system set up, to move them from one job to another. That's certainly reflected in the combat
commands as well. They all need to check that box, in order to burnish their credentials. It seems
to be just achieving that rank is the real accomplishment. Measuring their performance afterward
is irrelevant in that way, it's very similar to how CEOs are treated in the corporate world.
It would be nice if Trump fired a bunch of generals, just because we have too many of them already.
I don't see that happening, though.
Generals get removed. Mattis was retired a year early because he didn't get along with Obama. Whatever "get along'
means. Flynn left early. Remember McChrystal?
Rotation may have benefits of exposure to new areas and skill development opportunities. It
may also hide failures, and demonstrate the military equivalent of the "dance of the lemons" that
shuffles incompetent, corrupt or lazy principals around to different schools. There is more of
a meritocracy in the military, with less overt politicization, although the politics takes different
forms. I write that sadly as one from a family that supports the military and has many veterans.
American discussions about military are sidetracked easily by any number of stakeholders. Politicians
posture for patriotism (alliteration intended to elicit Porky Pig), while collecting campaign
cash. They are only the most visible of those that would shout down or hijack any objective discussion
of mission failures or weapons systems debacles such as the F-35. Their less visible neo-con enablers,
dual loyalty pundits and effective taskmasters all have their snouts in the trough and their rear
ends displayed to the citizens. If there is no other change in DC than to unmask those Acela bandits,
then many will applaud.
War is failure. Do not engage. And for dawgs sake do not arm, train, fund al Q types. I think
the last point in re Trumps way of doing things will be most telling. That would be victory.
Precisely. The US is situated in the safest neighborhood on the planet - oceans on two sides;
Canada and Mexico on the other two. All of the other dozens of nations in the western hemisphere get along just fine without a
global network of military bases and a 350-ship navy.
What the f*** is our problem? As history demonstrates, a value-subtracting global empire is
an infallible recipe for economic decline.
To try to look at the bright side, here's the thing about military people who are "uber hawkish",
or actually managed to get a nickname like "Mad Dog" . they like decisive, "clean" (funny word
to use for blowing people and the landscape to smithereens, but that's what people label it as)
engagements where bad guys are taken out and good guys rejoice.
If they are, and I'm sure they are, smart enough to see that this is exactly not what
the Middle East messes are, they may well tell Trump "let's just get our stuff and go home".
What we have been trying to do in the ME is not, and has never been (going back to before us,
the Russians in Afghanistan) anything where a military makes any sense at all. It's police+political
work at best, and despite what we've been turning the police departments into at home, police
work is very, very different from military work. Hopefully the warrior types see this, whereas
the Hillary Clintons of the world simply won't.
The US can win any standup fight. We quickly smashed the Taliban's military, and Saddam didn't
last long at all. It's the long, grinding guerrilla war that comes after that we inevitably lose.
And even there we will win 99% of the engagements (if all else fails, drop a giant bomb on them)
and yet sooner or later we'll run home with our tail between our legs.
Washington is addicted to gold-plated occupations. Whereas the only route to success is minimalist, an economy of force strategy. That also entails economy of injuries. Occupying forces ought to spend most of their time like Firemen - in their bunks back at the
barracks. That's how success was achieved in the 19th Century. ( British Empire, American nation,
French Empire. )
Such a scheme is still working wonders in South Korea. Not a whole lot of casualties that way.
Nation building is crazy all across the ummah. They won't suffer it. You would NOT believe
the amount of infrastructure blown up by our Iraqi allies - as a financial hustle.
It took forever for the American Army to figure out that the reason the power system kept crashing
was that the fellow building it up was corrupt and cashing in hugely by re-doing the same work
five times over. He would pull security off the power grid at point X so that his cousins could
dynamite the towers. Yes, he fled when the jig was up.
With his departure, the system started to work. This fiasco was an extreme embarrassement to
the US Army and the Iraqi officials. The perp had his whole clan involved. (!) Yes, this story
is suppressed. Guess why ?
1. The Generals have won. They are Generals.
2. The Military does not win wars, it prolongs the stalemate until the enemy's economy collapses.
3. With no public definition of win (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria), what is win?
4. The MIC is very lucrative. There are man, many winners there.
The Bush Administration arrogantly assumed that all peoples are enough alike that they can
be rescued the same way as Western Europeans were - after the Nazis were driven off. This premis was an epic error for the ages. The entire Washington establishment - to include the Pentagon - and the MSM went along with
this premis. In many ways they STILL buy into it.
You never read MSM articles questioning whether Iraqis or Afghans can buy into republican democracy.
The assumption is that the whole world is waiting with baited breath to achieve this Western political-cultural
ideal.
But Islam proscribes democracy, and these lands are emotionally Islamic in the extreme. When
queried, virtually every man demands Shariah law, under Islam.
Changing Afghan culture is what doomed the Soviet 'project.' So the Pentagon was not ever going
to touch cultural issues. This has proved very controvesial as Afghans practice pederasty on a
grand scale. Likewise, the NATO nations were not going to 'touch' the opium trade.
They were also wholly dependent upon Pakistan for logistics. Ultimately, a second rail route
was established at horrific expense across Russia. But no military specific goods could travel
by that route.
So the entire campaign was both necessary - to punish al Qaeda and the Taliban - and unwinnable
in a WWII sense. There never was a thought about expanding the scope of the conflict up to WWII
purportions, of course.
The problem is not that of Pentagon leadership.
The folly starts at the strategic level - straight out of the White House.
It was a mistake for Bush to be so optomistic, grandiose.
It was a mistake for Obama to run away from Iraq. A corps sized garrison force would've permitted
him enough influence to stop Maliki from sabotaging his own army - with crony appointments. (
The Shia simply did not have enough senior talent. So he over promoted his buddies and his tribe.
This set the stage for ghost soldiers and a collapse in morale across entire divisions. )
The correct solution, in 2011, was to endure - like we have in South Korea.
The correct solution, in 2009, was to NOT expand Afghan operations. I spent many an hour arguing
the folly of said expansion. It was inevitable that after any expansion there would be a massive
draw down - which would destablize the Kabul government.
The correct solution for both was a steady-state, economy of operations mode - with the US
Army largely standing idle in their barracks - letting the locals run all day to day operations.
You end up with the best of all worlds, low American casualties, low interference with the
locals, yet a psychological back-bone for young governments who are financial cripples.
At this time, the best route is to cut off Pakistan from all Western aid, and to entirely stop
Pakistani immigration to the West. Islamabad is as much an enemy of the West as Riyadh or Tehran.
This would also help calm Pakistan down, as it's the cultural embarrassment vis a vis the West
that's driving Pakistanis crazy. Let them interact with their blood cousins, the Hindus of India.
That'll be plenty enough modernity for Islamabad and Riyadh.
Pull out of Syria entirely. Stop funding al Nusrah - which is an acknowledged branch of al
Qaeda. Egypt has entered the conflict on the side of Assad, Iran and Russia, most recently. The "White
Hats" are a fraud.
Comparing "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan with Civil War or such conflicts confuses the issue
and shifts the responsibility from the policy makers to the military. Iraq and Afghanistan are
not wars, they are occupations and as such are unwinnable.
US is caught in a typical occupation trap, where they want a subservient regime that is under
their control. Subservient regimes are subservient because they lack a large power base and are
dependent on their foreign backers. A subservient regime with a power base does not stay subservient
for long, they quickly develop an independent streak at which point you have to overthrow them
and install a different, weaker regime.
US imposed regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan are classic examples of this. Al-Maliki in Iraq
was a marginal figure before becoming prime minister, similar to Karzai in Afghanistan. The new
leaders, Ashraf Ghani as the new Afghan president and Haider Al-Abadi as the Iraqi prime minister
are both ex-pats that only returned to the country after US occupation. Both Al-Maliki and Karzai
have been in power long enough that they were starting to develop a power base and show signs
of breaking away from the US, so they had to be replaced.
Stabilizing a subservient regime with a weak power base requires US presence and boots on the
ground. A subservient regime with a strong power base that can support itself quickly stops being
subservient and has to be replaced. A "victory", where US troops would not be necessary for the
regime support, means loss of control over the regime.
So US is stuck in a loop. Political considerations force them to build up a regime to a point
of independence, only to have to tear it down when it looks like it might go against American
interests. US military takes the blame because they have to fight the latest insurgent group CIA
built up to effect regime change.
I would never gainsay that many technocratic, careerist general officers might be looking for
ways to enhance their glory and bid up their asking price for CNN slots and board positions at
Lockheed Martin. But the swamp you seek to drain has an apex predator; wealthy and powerful civilians.
I seem to recall some generals, Eric Shinseki and Jay Garner come to mind, who tried to bring
a little truth to power and avoid the biggest mistakes of the Iraq war.
Ideologues in the administration had other plans. The first being the original sin of the war
itself, supported by a vast industry of defense, finance and media interests who knew opportunity
when they saw it. As for now, what the hell is the mission that the military is supposed to win?
I get the sense we will have our next big, proper war on account of using the military to solve
problems that no military could, like say a GWOT.
Eisenhower's prophecy has metastasized so deeply into the body politic, only a profound change
in the views of the citizenry could possibly make a difference. Short of economic or military
upheaval, it's hard to see how do we do this when our best paying jobs are strategically sprinkled
across the country, making every procurement and every base sacrosanct to even the most liberal,
libertarian or even peace-nick politicians? So, isn't the swamp much larger that the military
officer corps? Drain this one part, and it would fill back in rather quickly if that was the main
thrust of our attack on this nightmare.
I suspect Trump is headed to the White House partly because a significant number of people
concluded that social upheaval will be hastened by his administration, and that the consequences,
whatever they may be, will be worth bearing so that we can rebuild on the ashes of the neoliberal/neoconservative
era.
I sympathize, but with three college aged daughters, I was willing to work for, wait for, another
shot at a Bernie Sanders shaped attack on the system rather than throwing a Trump grenade. Trump
will only disrupt the system by accident, and absolutely unpredictably. His family's interests
are superbly served by the status quo, give or take a tax break or another busted union. It's
madness not to see his run for presidency as a vanity project run amok. If his cabinet and congress
play him right, it's pedal to the metal for the most reactionary, avaricious, vindictive and bellicose
impulses in this country.
Someone might get hurt, and with bugger all to show for it.
Isn't victory the one thing we seek to avoid ? If there were victory anywhere, it would mean "the end", and everyone knows arm sales cannot,
should not, must not, end. After all, it is the only industrial endeavor we are still good at.
Yes, well there's that as well. And that's not an insignificant issue. So again, the witless
proles are fed endless propaganda about terrrrrists and being "safe" in order to keep on keeping
on. Trump played the rubes about safety with his vitriolic Anti-Muslim rhetoric. Although Trump
claimed not to want to continue the wars, I seriously doubt he'll do one damn thing to make improvements
in this regard.
Have readers seen / thought of the amount of decorations modern US generals and admirals wear
in comparison to their WW2 equivalents? I know Uncle Sam has been in permanent war for a long
time, but does beating up Grenada and Panama count? The other lot to wear a lot of bling are the
welfare junkies occupying Buck House.
Compared to Ike and Bradley, but Beedle wrote a book where he claimed credit for single-handedly
winning the war. West Point is ultimately a self selective group which poses a set of problems.
What kind of kid wants to be a soldier for 30 to 40 years at age 16 when they need to start the
application process? No one accidentally winds up at West Point or the other academies anymore.
What kind of kid in 1810 thought he could carry on for Washington at age 16? I bet he's arrogant
and loves pomp and pageantry.
I'm convinced we need to draft the officer corp from college bound seniors.
Unfolding the Future of the Long War, a 2008 RAND Corporation report, was sponsored by the
US Army Training and Doctrine Command's Army Capability Integration Centre. It set out US government
policy options for prosecuting what it described as "the long war" against "adversaries" in
"the Muslim world," who are "bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant Western dominance".
Interesting. Rand was enlisted to write up a report almost a decade later on a decision that
was made in 2000 when Little George decided to run for office. Making it appear to have just evolved
into this situation today, no doubt. Remember Rumsfeld's name for the ME war in 2002 was "Odyssey
Dawn". When he first tried to call it a "Crusade" he horrified everyone and had to find something
more genteel. But Odyssey Dawn clearly says it all it will be a very long war and it will carry
us around the world and we will stagger in confusion but in the end we will find our way. Not
the kind of war you can win by "bombing the shit out of em," as Donald might do. The victory we
will get from Odyssey Dawn will be the benefits of attrition and engagement. But the devastation
we cause will never be worth it.
Bacevich: "Yet here's what too few of those Americans appreciate, even today: war created
that swamp in the first place. War empowers Washington. It centralizes. It provides
a rationale for federal authorities to accumulate and exercise new powers. It makes government
bigger and more intrusive. It lubricates the machinery of waste, fraud, and abuse that causes
tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to vanish every year. When it comes to sustaining the
swamp, nothing works better than war."
Appreciated Bacevich's three questions, particularly the second. Far past time to come clean
on the real strategy in MENA. The mission and "the job" of military leaders has NOT been to bring
America's wars to a timely and successful conclusion. Instead, there is a strategy to balkanize
that region, keep it in chaos, keep the American people in perpetual wars and "support our troops"
mode, threaten Europeans with a flood of immigrants, assure profits for the MIC and access for
oil majors, and simply keep the military and other agencies occupied. "Winning a war" (and subsequent
occupation) in terms of "bringing conflicts to a prompt and successful conclusion" doesn't appear
to be high on the priority list of those who set the nation's geopolitical and military strategy.
Project for a New American Century indeed.
In terms of "draining the swamp" that war has created, as Bacevich points out, the names mentioned
as prospective appointees as national security adviser and defense secretary are not cause for
optimism that the incoming administration will implement policies that will lead to resolution
rather than perpetuating this mess.
Well, the US military's performance in WW1 and WW2, often against weak opposition, was less
than stunning. They won their battles with massively superior firepower, for the most part.
But
many of the same criticisms that Bacevich makes could be, and indeed were, made of the Vietnam
War, which is an odd omission from his article. If anything, the level of generalship then was
probably worse than it is today.
But the real problem does, indeed, lie in Washington; Accepting that the US strategy in Iraq,
for example, was indeed to create a pliable, pro-western democratic state, it's not clear that
there was actually much the military could do when it started to unravel because of the inherent
stupidity of the idea. At what the military call the "operational" level of war, there seems to
have been a complete thought vacuum in Washington. I can imagine successive generals asking the
political leadership "yes, but what exactly do you want me to do " and never getting
a coherent answer.
Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001, something like
370,000 combatants and noncombatants have been killed in the various theaters of operations where
U.S. forces have been active. Although modest by twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvest
of death is hardly trivial.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903285704576560593124523206 A dozen terrorism scholars gave a wide range of answers when asked to estimate how many members
there are, how the numbers have changed during al Qaeda's lifespan and how many countries the
group operates in. Analysts put the core membership at anywhere from 200 to 1,000
My recollection is toward the low end ( towards 200ppl) at the time of GWB addle-minded decision
to pull the relatively modest special forces resources out of Tora Bora in Afghanistan that had
the AlQ Principles in the crosshairs. Instead GWB pursued a bizarre and unrelated non-sequitur
mission of tipping over SH in Iraq allegedly because Saddam had threatened his Dad?
What was a reasonable response with explicit objectives to remedy a criminal act (as well at
the time with fairly unanimous sympathies of other Countries) could have been accomplished with
a modest Military footprint before getting the fk out of Afghanistan.
Instead it was scaled up into stupid endless Perpetual War without achievable objectives.
In retrospect divide $5T by 200-1,000 and consider how little it may have cost if 9/11 had
been treated as a criminal act by non-state actors, instead of sticking our foot into the role
of destabilizing other sovereign countries, killing /antagonizing the citizens and generally fking
up their countries??
I think the US is falling into the old imperialist trap of thinking of these places as countries
with capital cities and leaders recognized as such by the population. The British had that issue
in the 1770s when they captured the capital(s) of the new US but the revolution didn't stop. External
superpower (French) support was able to keep the resistance functioning and the British eventually
gave up. Both of those superpowers kept duking it out on other battlefields for another 30 years.
Yugoslavia was a temporary post-WW II construct based on a personality cult of Tito. When he
died, the real Yugoslavia turned out to be a bunch of tribes that really, really hated each other
and it all went to pieces.
North America is unusual with a huge moat around it other than a little isthmus at the south
end. Even so, there are millions of illegal immigrants that come over that isthmus or cross over
the southern moat (Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean) over the years. Only three countries (Mexico, US,
Canada) are in play and those borders have been stable for over a century. This was after the
US fought a massive civil war to keep that basic structure instead of having another country.
Even so, Quebec has come close to secession, Texas and California mumble about it periodically,
and Mexico effectively has a civil war with drug cartels. However, this is VERY stable compared
to nearly anywhere else in the world, so it leads us to false equivalencies about how other parts
of the world should work.
Putting in corrupt leaders with no popular support doesn't work as we have recently proved
again in Afghanistan and Iraq after having proved it previously in Vietnam and Cuba (pre-Castro).
The Afghanistan outcome may have worked better if the concept of Afghanistan disappeared and NATO
had worked with each region to come up with rational boundaries based on historical tribal alliances.
T.E. Lawrence had drawn a map like that for Iraq c.1918 but it did not fit the colonial power
requirements.. Turkey vs. the Kurds and Iran linking with the Shiites ensured that natural map
wasn't going to happen in 2003 either.
So, it is not clear what victory means in these areas. I think in many cases our concept of
victory is very different than what the locals think is acceptable. It appears that Assad, Russia,
and Iran may be "victorious" in Syria because it is clear they are willing to wipe out the village
to save it. They may find that there is nobody left there to rule though, so they will repopulate
those areas with allies, thereby probably sowing the seeds for another future war.
The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition
of the Spanish Empire; total destruction of native culture and replacement with Roman forms. The
places the Spanish controlled are still broken, so don't look for success in this endeavor anytime
soon
The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the
imposition of the Spanish Empire
At least the Spanish had a quantifiable, albeit indefensible objective (resource extraction) that
drove their predatory behavior. Our quizzical form of imperialism is a net resource drag with
fuzzy morphing objectives
Say what you want about the British Empire, but they did leave behind functioning legal and
political systems in most of the countries they controlled. In India's case, they also left them
a common language since there are so many languages there. Many of the countries remained in the
Commonwealth after independence which is something that none of the other colonial powers achieved.
I think the key was the British focused on empire as an extension of commerce, not ideology
(they already knew they were superior, so they didn't have to prove it, which allows for pragmatism).
In the end, when it was clear that they couldn't hold on, they backed out more gracefully than
many other empires.
If there's one thing we can hope for in a Trump presidency, it's going to be Trump looking
at the disaster of biblical proportions that continues to unfold in the arena of government contracting.
It doesn't matter which sector his gaze falls upon, he's going to find an appalling failure in
contract negotiation: the F-35, the Zumwalt, the LCS, the KC-46, the B-21 (really, just the idea
of cost-plus contracts in general), the SLS, the FCC's Universal Service Fund, the EPA's Superfund,
the Department of Education's "Race to the Top" and "No Child Left Behind" mandates, the ACA,
the dollar value on whatever classified contract the telecommunications industry has to spy on
the American people, the private contractors presently employed by the military to perform its
duties - the list is endless.
The military-industrial complex has perfected the art of putting parts of the design, manufacturing,
testing, and deployment of these programs into just about Congressional District so that everybody
wants their constituents to have a shot at one part of the trough.
This is how empires fall. Asymmetrical economic and military warfare against entrenched bureaucracies
and corruption.
potus wants to make money giving speeches after office and also needs $$$$$$$$$$$ for his lieberry.
The merchants of death will hire him for those speeches and send money for lieberry.
The generals of today help the merchants of death make money so when the retire they can go to
work for the merchants of death.
The idea is to never win so there is always an enemy so the merchants of death can continue to
profit.
The easy way to control a country is to have chaos all the time. This makes easier to steal resources
and keep citizens from pulling their own levers of justice. We only have to look at Amerika but
other countries around the globe have the same going on. austerity for all.
The .01% would like to thank you for staying at each others throats.
I matriculated at one of the U.S. Military Service Academies. I had my share of classes on
"War Footing," "War Strategies" and "War, War, War The Scarlet O'Hara Doctrine." (That last
one was mine and mine alone.)
And then I took the typical post-grad Naval War College assortment of "think-tanked" war symposiums.
All for naught, I must say.
Then came my time in the field. Most of my peers were good soldiers, junior officers and even
a few were leaders. But no one I knew had the stomach for the orders passed down they were seen
just as watered-down "march-in-place" bullshit until the next wave of senior leadership flew in.
We junior officers were in the field just as much as our men I'd say half (or more) of my
squadrons were comprised of men and women on their second, third, fourth or more tours of
duty. I'm so glad they didn't hear the bullshit we had to listen to. In fact, to this day, my
greatest gift to my men and women was the translation and humanizing effect of taking bullshit
orders and making them palatable for them.
No, we haven't won a war since WWII for many reasons; but, in my humble estimation, the two
biggest culprits are politics and logistics. For one, our politicians don't know what it's like
to wage war, what it's like for the combatants or the civilians seemingly always caught in the
middle. Or what the hell we're going to do in the off-chance that we win one of these puppies.
No, the Generals have not forgotten how to win wars in fact, there are no generals
alive now who ever had the good fortune to win one. So the Generals don't know how to
win wars.
Oh, by the way this was during Vietnam. Nothing has changed.
Glad to read a comment from someone with first hand experience. Generals know how to win conventional
wars, where success is measured based on % enemy destroyed or seizing an objective. One could
argue Norman Schwarzkopf won the 1st Gulf War, only difference is that U.S. Generals weren't left
to perform humanitarian functions after. As the author eludes to - but still doesn't stray from
attacking the competence of senior military leaders without an objective can success be determined?
If one's mission as a Colonel is to lead a Brigade security operation on a Forward Operating Base
for a year, can he/she be successful based on the author's arbitrary standards of success? I would
argue with minimal casualties and no breaches over the year, the mission would be a success, but
these everyday successes are neglected. Accordingly, if a Component Combatant Commander leads
coalition operations in Iraq for two years with 0.05% coalition casualties and no FOBs being breached,
shouldn't that be a success?
It's too bad that General's success can't be measured like their CEO equivalents based on an
quarterly earnings, instead they have to answer to often ill-informed civilian leadership being
judged by vacant metrics and arbitrary standards by those like Bakevich. At least the military's
top executives (Generals) make about 4x their median worker's salary. These men and women could
take far better jobs in the MIC or the Corporate Realm, many I'm sure stay for noble reasons to
lead their servicemembers.
Sounds like the lament of an aging mafia don that's forgotten what he's talking about is illegal.
"Why can't our generals pull off a good old-fashioned smash and grab like they used to? They must
be incompetent!"
That's so last millennium. We've moved on, don. Smash & grabs are penny ante. Now the game
is Full-Spectrum Dominance.
So I don't think an old-fashioned smash & grab has been the goal for a long time. For decades
(ever since WWII?) we've been trying to regime change our way to the goal of every Hollywood mad
scientist and super-villian: everlasting world dominance.
What have they actually accomplished? Hard to say, from my vantage point. "Insufficient data,"
as the old Star Trek computer said.
I know that one of the main goals is to prevent there from ever being any threat to our dominance.
So while China and Russia aim for Eurasian integration, we're all about it's disintegration. We're
also determined to keep the EU from ever threatening our dominance. South America is slipping
the yoke, but we haven't given up.
At the very least, our generals are doing a smashing job of spreading chaos. And then there's
weaponized economics.
Here in the "Homeland" (genuflects), on the "home front," in the domestic "battle space," it's
important to realize that when the Pentagon says "full-spectrum dominance," that means us, comrades.
Wall-to-wall surveillance? Check. POTUS power to execute or disappear dissidents? Check. Torture
enshrined in secret laws and the public mind? Check.
On what level are the relevant decisions being made: public discourse, or top security? We're
not privy to the councils where super secret intelligence is discussed and the big decisions are
made. We're out here, on the receiving end of weapons-grade PSYOPS.
So what are we talking about, here? I don't think analyses based in kayfabe will ever arrive
at real insight. Analyzing events in terms of the cover stories meant to dupe us is much ado about
nothing.
The above article was published in 2000. Obama never renounced FSD. AFAIK it's still the strategy.
Why doesn't the esteemed colonel frame his analysis in terms of our official defense posture?
Are we any closer to FSD, or not?
But I must say, nice job of framing the debate. /s
As far as any hope for change under the new don, I don't see any. He'd have to publicly renounce
FSD, wind down the empire of bases, and find something to do with all those now in its employ,
all while "pivoting" to climate change and rejuvenating the economy, to actually respond to our
actual conditions. The Don is many things, but a martyr for peace and Mother Earth ain't one.
I'll be impressed when the colonel starts calling our wars crimes against humanity and for
their immediate cessation and full reparations. "Moar better generals" will not succeed at accomplishing
a basically insane strategy. Until then, I'll file Bacevich under "modified limited hangout."
"But can he do anything about it?" - Don't go to war without a damn good reason seems like
it might be a pretty good start. Despite his typically being all over the map on this e.g. tough-on-terrorism-and-ISIS
I found myself repeatedly surprised during the primary season at Trump being the only major-party
candidate even including Bernie to consistently talk good sense on Libya, Syria, Ukraine and
Russia.
Agreed. I was surprised, too. Of course, it's the working class children in the flyover states
who join the military and go to war, and come back maimed or with PTSD to a rotten job market.
So that may have been politically astute on Trump's part and, if so, good for him.
Andrew Bacevich is correct if one wears blinders and looks strictly at DoD Generals. The reality
is that there is a Western Imperium that is intent only on short term profits and has degenerated
into looting its own people and destroying sovereign nations. The Vietnam War showed that colonial
wars could not be fought with a conscript army. The volunteer US Army is too small to put a platoon
of soldiers in every village and town square in Afghanistan let alone Iraq. The endless wars were
unwinnable from the get go. The globalist empire is supremely efficient in looting taxpayers,
trashing Deplorables and spreading regime change campaigns across the world. The forever wars
are being fought by proxy forces with Western military support without a single thought for their
deadly consequences to make money.
Let's be brutally frank. The US both wants an empire, but also wants to pretend it is encouraging democracy everywhere.
Objectives where the result is deceitful and duplicitous behavior. Ask the Indians about the
methods, or the beneficiaries of the "Monroe Doctrine." The British wanted an empire. A simple objective. If you are not England, you are a colony,
and we, the English, make the rules. At the heart of American activities is a kernel of deceit. Self determination for people, but
only if you do what we say. The kernel of deceit poisons every walk of life connected to Washington.
Every single one.
The US is called the empire of chaos. It could also be called the empire of Deceit. Do as we
say, but we are not taking any responsibility for you if you do what we say. Don't do what we
say, and we will fund your opposition until they stuff a dagger up you ass.
I don't understand why we're in the Middle East at all. The US seems taken by the 4000 year
old, 5th grade concept of controlling the "Fertile Crescent." Why don't we just buy the oil we
want at prevailing prices.
Winning for the Boykin-ites is when the Middle East becomes Christian! lol As Smedley said.
"It's a racket."
Whatever, then there's Israel's push to steal Palestinian gas and pipe it thru Syria and Turkey
to markets in the Europe.
Think about Democrats using identity politics to claim religious fervor and war used to show
being strong on defense. With both political parties using corruption to align power and control
at home and abroad. Choosing your enemies carefully, for you will become them.
Let's just pull out of the Middle East and do everything we can to de-escalate these wars:
especially to keep the other great powers out too, unless called back in as a true UN peacekeeping
force after the locals have found a way to cool things down.
The US military was the first part of the government to be turned into a business, the first
neo-liberal institution created in America. The real problem is that the US military is run by
managers and not soldiers. The Germans used to make fun of the British Army in WWI by calling
it an army of lions led by donkeys. The US military is an army of lions led by managers.
If Andrew is looking for a denouement to the Military Industrial complex then one need look
no further than the British empire specifically what made it shrink and shrivel very rapidly.
WWI and WWII. The decimation of the economy and the inability to keep spending money to maintain
empire is what reversed the entire machine. It will be the same with the US as well.
As long as
the dollar is high and Wall Street keeps it that way, there will be no pressure to do anything
different. When people start going hungry and jobless and start getting the bejesus bombed out
of them as happened during the blitz then they begin to understand what war truly means. In America
there has been no war for too long and the people here know nothing about war's sufferings and
privations. There was a little window via the draft during 'Nam' but that's about it. Nothing
will happen until a majority of the populace start hurting real bad.
This idea of McCarthy style attack turned in promotion with some sites having large flow of
donations from outrages readers.
Notable quotes:
"... By Max Blumenthal, a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of Goliath and Republican Gomorrah. His most recent book is The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal. Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... it was created about three months ago when the Red baiting was already in full swing in the media. ..."
"... it now has a wikipedia page as of 15 Nov. ..."
"... Congratulations! That site is like a who's who of influential critical reporting. I suspect, as with so many of the bubble-dwellers attempts, that this slapdash but probably overpriced effort will drive traffic to those sites while reducing the credibility of its promoters. An instant classic own-goal. I look forward to the inevitable and embarassing revelations about their founders and funding. ..."
"... Under general tenets of defamation law (statutory and in common law), it is not just the original entity or person defaming (including defamation "per se") another that is liable for such torts, but others who carelessly or recklessly repeat the original defamatory statements/claims (in this case, both The Washington Post & New York Times bear similar potential liability as PropOrNot). ..."
"... Requires actual malice since it's the media you're suing but that can be proven by reckless indifference to the truth which this might actually meet the standard of, especially since the site isn't making this claim based on anything other than the content of the views espoused by the sites. ..."
"... i vaguely thought the actual malice requirement was tied to the target being a public figure; maybe running a blog qualifies. ..."
"... Propornot is directly accusing NC and the rest of a crime (espionage), which constitutes defamation per se, so I think the only issue before the court would be whether it was done with reckless indifference. ..."
"... The MSM did such a fine job reporting the news during the campaign. (16 anti-Sanders stories in 16 hours from the WaPo. A new record.) Are small news/opinion sites cutting into their online advertising revenue. ;) ..."
"... Second, had you bothered to read the actual PropOrNot site, it accuses all of the sites listed as being "propaganda outlets" under the influence of "coordinators abroad" (#11 in its FAQ). ..."
"... And under #7, PropOrNot asserts that "some" of the sites are guilty of violating the Espionage Act and the Foreign Agent Registration Act, as in accusing them of being spies and calling for investigation (by implication of all, since how do you know which is or isn't) by the FBI and DoJ. ..."
"... Their MSM propaganda isn't working and they see it. They already heavily censor comments on their MSM sites. Other MSM sights such as Bloomberg closed down comments altogether. Expect more of that. ..."
"... what weakens people's confidence in their leaders is their not addressing people's issues and lying about their inability to do so. Despite protestations from the likes of much of our 'intelligentsia', mainstream media, and most of our political class, the majority of people are not stupid. There is a reason why terms like 'lame stream media' resonate with a large number of people. ..."
"... For instance when Obama is out there talking about a recovery and people know that there is no such thing in their lives, their communities then HE has lost their confidence not someone giving an interview on RT. ..."
"... Or to put it another way the problem isn't someone going on RT and saying the emperor isn't wearing clothes, the problem is that the emperor isn't wearing clothes. ..."
"... Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do. ..."
"... How do you know any of this? how would you know would Russian intelligence's goals are, or how they think of Steve Keen? this is all just McCarthyism 2016, accusing the left of being dupes or willing agents of Russia. McCarthy had his 200 communists in the state department, this website and the Washington Post have their 200 Russian propaganda websites. Why are you catapulting this bullshit? ..."
"... James do you happen to remember when those intelligence agencies reported Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.? How about when North Korea hacked Sony? Both of which were inaccurate and dare I say it propaganda intended to mislead the American public. ..."
"... Why does Naval Intelligence have anything to do with this investigation? ..."
"... Why were 17 agencies watching the DNC? ..."
"... The immediate claims that Russia hacked the DNC were never credible to any one with even a bit of knowledge about high level hacking. The 17 agency thing was outright laughable once you asked the simple question of what most of them had to do with this investigation. And USA Today was and is the print equivalent of the Yahoo front page. ..."
"... oh so now you're an intelligence expert, but somehow you still don't have any evidence, because the "17 intelligence agencies" don't have any evidence either. they didn't have evidence of wmd's but i bet you fell for that, too. i think the most dishonest line in your post is this: You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda ..."
"... If Russia is actively trying to influence American politics, then they have been far more effective than the US and get a much bigger bang for their buck. For one thing, they didn't have to drop a single bomb to effect a regime change. So assuming you are correct, the noise is just a hysterical regime change envy. ..."
"... So are RT and Sputnik propaganda outlets? Sometimes they are, but sometimes they report the truth that our MSM, having given up the last shreds of their journalistic integtity in return for access, won't report. ..."
"... Given the widespread funding of media (including government-owned media) by Western governments, I would say that US and Euro hysteria about Russian propaganda, real and imagined, is yet another off-putting display of noxious American exceptionalism. ..."
"... I grew up listening to broadcasts of RFE and VOA behind the Iron Curtain, and mixed in with honest reporting was a heavy dose of propaganda aimed at weakening Eastern European governments. Now, it is the America For Bulgaria Foundation that funds several media outlets in the country. What they all have in common is rabid Russophobia-driven editorial stances, and one can easily conclude that it is driven by the almighty dollar rather than by honest, deeply held convictions. So, America can do it but whines like a toddler when it is allegedly done to it?! What a crock. ..."
"... The worst thing is that regardless of whatever propaganda wars are going on, this list constitutes a full frontal attack on free speech in the alleged "Land of the Free." Besides NC, there are number of sites distinguished by thorough, quality reporting of the kind that WaPo and NYT no longer engage in. Having grown up behind the Iron Curtain, this is chilling to me. Dissident voices speaking against the endless wars for profit and neoliberalism are in effect being intimidated and smeared by anonymous thugs. This, while the militarized local police and federal agencies, closely coordinated by "fusion centers", have ruthlessly put down a number of citizen protests, have engaged in spying on all of us, and have gone after whistleblowers for exposing the reach and scope of the surveillance state. These are the hallmarks of dictatorships, not of the alleged "world's greatest democracy and beacon of freedom." What the eff happened to America, and why are you equating challenging the oppressive and exploitative status quo with being "unwitting Russian dupes?" Seems to me that the useful idi0t here is you, with all due respect. ..."
"... American intelligence uses exactly the same tactics, and has since at least WW1. Selling the American public on the Iraq war is a classic example. Remember that all news is biased, some much more so than others (we report, you decide.) ..."
"... The advent of the internet and the subsequent broadening of readily available news of all slants has made it much harder for any intelligence agency of any specific country to control the news( but it has made it extremely easy for them to monitor what we are reading). ..."
"... . The normal tell for this is being state sponsored, or having a big sugar daddy providing the funding, and Yves doesn't have any of that. ..."
"... Some of us happen to believe that 'lambast[ing] the American political establishment and weaken[ing] the public's confidence in its leaders' is in the best interests of everyone on the planet, including the American public. If that constitutes propaganda, I'm not about to look that gift horse in the mouth. RT isn't perfect I personally find their relentless cheerleading for economic growth rather wearying but it knocks spots off the competition and consistently sends me scurrying to the internet to chase up on new faces and leads. I'm grateful for that. ..."
"... Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious ..."
"... It is obvious that Russia has been trying to influence American politics. The very existence of RT makes that obvious. What is not obvious is why modestly left-of-center Americans' political concerns should be subject to McCarthyite attacks in our most influential news outlets. We've been subject to internally generated far-right propaganda for decades now and have seen minimal, feeble 'mainstream' efforts to counter it. The far right has done tremendous damage to our nation and is poised to do much more now that its doyens control all branches of the federal government. ..."
"... What I interpret this as is a strike by 'think tank' grifters against those who are most likely to damage their incomes, their prestige and their exceedingly comfortable berths on the Acela corridor. It's a slightly panicky, febrile effort by a bunch of heels who are looking at losing their mid-6-figure incomes . and becoming like so many of the rest of us: over-credentialed, under-paid and unable to afford life in the charming white parts of our coastal metropolises. ..."
"... You've just libeled me. You have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim. Nor do you have any evidence that Russia has been "aggressively" trying to influence US politics. This is one of many hysterical lines offered by Team Dem over the course of this election, up there with depicting all Trump voters as racist yahoos. ..."
"... "Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics" Apparently with the help of Hillz. Was her decision to use a private email server made with the help of Putin? ..."
"... If you'd like, take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1959. Then you'll find many criticisms of US society by the Civil Rights movement sharing the same sinister tone as criticisms made by Soviet new outlets. Then you'll also find a gaggle of US pols and their minions claiming on that basis that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run. Then you'll also find many people who don't bother to distinguish source from story and end up enjoying the official Kool Aid. ..."
"... It reminds me of a story from Northern Ireland in the 1960's when the leader of a civil rights march was asked by a BBC reporter 'is it true that your organisation has been infiltrated by radicals and communists?' His reply was to sigh and say 'I f**king wish it was true'. ..."
"... @hemeantwell This same claim of communist inspiration and connection was also thrown at the anti-war movement. I remember arguing with a friend of my parents in the summer of 1969, after my freshman year at college where I was active in the anti-war and anti-draft movements. After countering all of the arguments made by this gentleman, he was left with nothing to say but "Well, that's the Commie's line " as a final dismissal. ..."
"... Right up to his death on 4 Apr 1968, Martin Luther King was accused by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI of "knowingly, willingly and regularly cooperating with and taking guidance from communists." Now there's a US national holiday in King's honor. ..."
"... It's all propaganda of one sort or another. I exhort you to read Plato and understand that the Sophists for which Socrates held so much ire are much the same as anon and administration sources for so much of what drives journalism. ..."
"... NC separates the wheat from the chaff. ..."
"... Verdict on PropOrNot: Looks like Prop to me. Getting really sloppy, Oligarchy ..."
"... This has all the earmarks of an effort by the Nuland Neocons that joined Camp Hillary, and now in defeat constitute a portion Hillary's professional dead enders. ..."
"... Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march. It has powerful allies in the intelligence community, the media and actors on the world stage who deem Trump to be an existential threat to America and world. The story of Russian inspired fake news is paving the way for regime change, an HRC specialty. The recount is the tip of the spear. If they can pull this coup off, sites like this will move from the useful idiot category to the enemy of the state category overnight. ..."
"... Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am If you weren't on the Nixon's enemies list, there was something wrong with you ..."
"... First as tragedy, then as farce. People literally killed themselves because of McCarthyism. No one is going to kill themselves over this farce. ..."
"... Aha, I have solved the mystery. It is elementary my dear Watson! The PropOrNot site is itself a Russian propaganda ploy on the part of the KGB! What? errr, ok, the FSB then. ..."
"... But Max himself is an interesting character. I've been scratching my head wondering how a guy one step removed (Sidney Blumenthal) from the Clintons' inner circles is ambitious about exposing the ludicrous claims made by those same people regarding Palestine and Syria. ..."
"... I like the idea some commenter had (too lazy to find it right now) that all these strategems were long-prepared, and in place for a Clinton victory. Now the Clinton faction in the political class is deploying them anyhow. They'd better hurry, because influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation isn't as lucrative as it once was . ..."
"... For long time readers this russian(chinese) propaganda should be obvious. And it is ok, get used to it. Great opportunity to learn "how to read between the lines", and when you understand, solidifying into a basic skill. ..."
"... Be careful NC. MSM are in panic. They see that their propaganda is less and less effective and start targeting those who offer an alternative against their obsolete narratives. Be prepared: when they will realize that these don't work at all, their fake democracy will become an open dictatorship. ..."
"... The US MSM is all propaganda all the time-every bit as bad as Pravda ever was. RT now is the "anti-propaganda." They were even carrying Jesse Ventura and other Americans who are blacklisted by the MSM. ..."
"... This is a "hail mary pass." ..."
"... A hail mary pass that was intercepted by the opposing team and run back for a touchdown. ..."
"... What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I feel like I missed some important public dis somewhere that would explain it all. Condoleeza Rice's general dated anti-Soviet attitude I could understand, but that doesn't explain the escalating bigotry pouring out of Obama and Clinton (and their various surrogates). Is it a case of a bomb in search of a war? ..."
"... Looks to me like it came out of the HRC campaign. ..."
"... What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I think it can be traced back to this . ..."
"... I don't think there is an easy answer to your question, but I think it goes around to the failed Ukrainian coup (well, partially failed) and the realisation within a certain element of the neocon establishment that Putin had been inadvertently strengthened by their policy failures in the Ukraine and Syria. I think there was a concerted element within the Blob to refocus on 'the Russian threat' to cover up their failures in the Middle East and the refusal of the Chinese to take the bait in the Pacific. ..."
"... This rolled naturally into concerns about cyberwar and it was a short step from there to using Russian cyberespionage to cover up the establishments embarrassment over wikileaks and multiple other failures exposed by outsiders. As always, when a narrative suits (for different reasons) the two halves of the establishment, the mainstream media is always happy to run it unquestioningly. ..."
"... So in short, I think its a mixture of genuine conspiracy, mixed in with political opportunism. ..."
"... Listen to Gore Vidal (in 1994!) and find out why: https://www.c-span.org/video/?61333-1/state-united-states ..."
"... That is very good question and it does not have a simple answer. I have been pondering this for 8 years now. The latest bout of Russia-hatred began as Putin began to re-assert their sovereignty after the disastrous Yeltsin years. This intensified after Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. In adddition the US was preprogrammed to hate Russia for historical reasons. Mostly because of the Soviet era but also when the US inherited the global empire from the Brits we also got some of their dislike of the Russian empire dating back to the 19th century. ..."
"... It all started when Putin arrested the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, when Putin put a stop to the shock therapy looting of Russia by the Harvard mafia and Jeffrey Sachs. Didn't he know that oligarch's are above the law? They are in the US. Didn't he know that money can buy you immunity from prosecution like it does in Europe and the US? Can't have that, hence the Ukraine, deprive him of his warm water naval base. Then there was the Crimean referendum. Out smarted again! Can't have that! ..."
"... And so the Democratic Party ends, not with a bang, but with a McCarthyite lynch mob. ..."
"... Didn't we used to call "fake news" rumors? And when did newspapers stop printing rumors? ..."
"... Based on the evidence of above mentioned link, this "PropOrNot" can be part of a project of U.S. government to manipulate media to create an anti-Russia climate or more likely another method of attack on what they consider "Left" so status quo in economic policies of U.S. can be maintained. ..."
"... it scares the pants off me ..."
"... I'm with you Tom Stone. There is nothing funny about this. The MSM at this point is the greatest purveyor of fake news on the planet, I am talking about not just CNN and Fox, but the BBC, France24 and so on. ..."
"... Pretty much everything they have said and every video they has shown on east Aleppo is either a lie or a fake. As someone noted the other day (I can't remember who) if the stories about east Aleppo were actually true, then the Russians and Syrians have destroyed approximately 900 hospitals including the 'last pediatric hospital in east Aleppo' which has been completely demolished on at least three separate occasions in the last few months. The main stream outlets don't even try to be consistent. ..."
"... It's 90 hospitals not 900, but 90 is just as ridiculous given the whole country of Syria only has 88 hospitals/clinics. ..."
"... Weapons of Mass Distraction. Another nail in the coffin of credibility of the NYT and WaPo. Recall after the Stupid War and how there were zero weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq that the NYT and Wapo declined to mention or explore their own culpability in beating the drums of war. This will be more of the same. ..."
"... I suspect that PropOrNot's outburst was developed during the campaign by well heeled and connected Hilary supporters to be unveiled after the election to muzzle increasingly influential web sites including NC. As it stands PropOrNot shot a blank. If Hilary had won the campaign against "fake news" would probably have taken on a more ominous tone. ..."
"... PropOrNot is asserting that the sites on the 'List", both right and left, were responsible for the Clinton loss by spreading false Russian propaganda. This would make more sense, as a political project, if Clinton had won. Asking the Trump DOJ and Trump's/Comey's FBI to investigate the asserted causes of Trump's win is bizarre. ..."
"... Excellent observation, preparation for a post Killery election purge of the alternate media. ..."
"... Lots of panic for the Washington regime. The clownish asshole loser that they carefully groomed proved less repulsive than their chosen Fuehrer Clinton. Now they are distraught to see that their enemy Russia sucks much less than the USA. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Jill Stein has embarrassed herself with this effort. I gave money to her until she made her final vp choice Baraka called Bernie a white supremacist! I did vote for her and now feel it really was a wasted vote. 1% in the national totals. Ok. Being a useful idiot for the Clintons no way. ..."
"... When the rot is complete and the edifice tumbles? Or when TINA wins, and the voices go silent? My bet is on the later. Collectively, the money got all 4 aces (and a few more hidden up their sleaves and a few more hidden in their boots, etc no end of aces.) ..."
"... Charles Hugh-Smith's response to the "list": "The Washington Post: Useful-Idiot Shills for a Failed, Frantic Status Quo That Has Lost Control of the Narrative" ..."
Yves here. As indicated in Links, we'll have more to say about this in due course. Note, however,
that as Blumenthal points out, some of the sites that are listed as PropOrNot allies receive US government
funding. As Mark Ames pointed out via e-mail, "The law is still clear that US State Dept money and
probably BBG money cannot be used
to propagandize American audiences." So if these sites really are "allies" in terms of providing
hard dollars or other forms of support (shared staff, research), this site and its allies may be
in violation of US statutes.
By Max Blumenthal, a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning
author of Goliath and Republican Gomorrah. His most recent book is The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance
in Gaza. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal. Originally published at
Alternet
A shady website that claims
"Russia is Manipulating US Opinion Through Online Propaganda" has compiled a blacklist of websites
its anonymous authors accuse of pushing fake news and Russian propaganda. The blacklist includes
over 200 outlets, from the right-wing Drudge Report and Russian government-funded Russia Today, to
Wikileaks and an array of marginal conspiracy and far-right sites. The blacklist also includes some
of the flagship publications of the progressive left, including Truthdig, Counterpunch, Truthout,
Naked Capitalism, and the Black Agenda Report, a leftist African-American opinion hub that is critical
of the liberal black political establishment.
Called PropOrNot, the blacklisting organization was described by the Washington Post's Craig Timberg
as "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds."
The Washington Post agreed to preserve the anonymity of the group's director on the grounds that
exposure could result in their being targeted by "Russia's legions of skilled hackers." The Post
failed to explain what methods PropOrNot relied on to conclude that "stories planted or promoted
by the Russian disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times." (Timberg also cited
a report co-authored by Aaron Weisburg, founder of the one-man anti-Palestinian "Internet Haganah"
operation, who has been
accused of interfering
in federal investigations, stealing the personal information of anarchists, online harassment, and
fabricating information to smear his targets.)
Despite the Washington Post's charitable description of PropOrNot as a group of independent-minded
researchers dedicated to protecting the integrity of American democracy, the shadowy group bears
many of the qualities of the red enemies it claims to be battling. In addition to its blacklist of
Russian dupes, it lists a collection of outlets funded by the U.S. State Department, NATO and assorted
tech and weapons companies as "allies." PropOrNot's methodology is so shabby it is able to peg widely
read outlets like Naked Capitalism, a leading left-wing financial news blog, as Russian propaganda
operations.
Though the supposed experts behind PropOrNot remain unknown, the site has been granted a veneer
of credibility thanks to the Washington Post, and journalists from the New York Times, including
deputy Washington editor
Jonathan
Weissman to former Obama senior advisor
Dan Pfeiffer
, are hailing Timberg's story as Pulitzer-level journalism. "Russia appears to have successfully
hacked American democracy,"
declared Sahil
Kapur, the senior political reporter for Bloomberg. The dead-enders of Hillary Clinton's campaign
for president have also seized on PropOrNot's claims as proof that the election was rigged, with
Clinton confidant and Center For American Progress president Neera Tanden
declaring
, "Wake up people," as she blasted out the Washington Post article on Russian black ops.
PropOrNot's malicious agenda is clearly spelled out on its website. While denying McCarthyite
intentions, the group is openly
attempting
to compel "formal investigations by the U.S. government, because the kind of folks who make propaganda
for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business." The group
also seeks to brand major progressive politics sites (and a number of prominent right-wing opinion
outlets) as "'gray' fake-media propaganda outlets" influenced or directly operated by Russia's Federal
Security Service (FSB). It can then compel Facebook and Google to
ban them , denying them the ad revenue they rely on to survive.
Though PropOrNot's hidden authors claim, "we do not reach our conclusions lightly," the group's
methodology leaves more than enough room to smear an outlet on political grounds. Among the criteria
PropOrNot identifies as clear signs of Russian propaganda are, "Support for policies like Brexit,
and the breakup of the EU and Eurozone" and, "Opposition to Ukrainian resistance to Russia and Syrian
resistance to Assad."
By these standards, any outlet that raises the alarm about the considerable presence of extreme
right-wing elements among the post-Maidan Ukrainian government or that questions the Western- and
Saudi-funded campaign for regime change in Syria can be designated a Russia dupe or a paid agent
of the FSB. Indeed, while admitting that they have no idea whether any of the outlets they blacklisted
are being paid by Russian intelligence or are even aware they are spreading Russian propaganda, PropOrNot's
authors concluded that any outlets that have met their highly politicized criteria "have effectively
become tools of the Russian intelligence services, and are worthy of further investigation."
Among the most ironic characteristics of PropOrNot is its claim to be defending journalistic integrity,
a rigorous adherence to the facts, and most of all, a sense of political levity. In fact, the group's
own literature reflects a deeply paranoid view of Russia and the outside world. According to PropOrNot's
website , Russia is staging a hostile takeover of America's alternative online media environment
"in order to Make Russia Great Again (as a new 'Eurasian' empire stretching from Dublin to Vladisvostok),
on the other. That means preserving Russian allies like Bashar al-Assad in Syria, breaking up the
'globalist' EU, NATO, and US-aligned trade and defense organizations, and getting countries to join
'Eurasianist' Russian equivalents Or else."
The message is clear: Stamp out the websites blacklisted by PropOrNot,or submit to the malevolent
influence of Putin's "new global empire."
Among the websites listed by PropOrNot as "allies" are a number of groups funded by the U.S. government
or NATO. They include InterpreterMag, an anti-Russian media monitoring blog
funded through
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, an arm of the U.S. government, which is edited by the hardline neoconservative
Michael Weiss. Polygraph Fact Check,
another project of Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty aimed at Russian misinformation, is listed as an "ally." So is Bellingcat, the
crowdsourced military analysis blog run by Elliot Higgins through the Atlantic Council, which receives
funding from the
U.S. State Department, various Gulf monarchies and the weapons industry. (Bellingcat is
directly funded
by Google, according to Higgins.)
Unfortunately for PropOrNot's mysterious authors, an alliance requires the consent of all parties
involved. Alerted to his designation on the website, Bellingcat's Higgins immediately disavowed it:
"Just want to note I hadn't heard of Propornot before the WP piece and never gave permission to them
to call Bellingcat 'allies,'" he
wrote .
As scrutiny of PropOrNot increases, its credibility is rapidly unraveling. But that has not stopped
Beltway media wiseguys and Democratic political operatives from hyping its claims. Fake news and
Russian propaganda have become the great post-election moral panic, a creeping Sharia-style conspiracy
theory for shell-shocked liberals. Hoping to punish the dark foreign forces they blame for rigging
the election, many of these insiders have latched onto a McCarthyite campaign that calls for government
investigations of a wide array of alternative media outlets. In this case, the medicine might be
worse than the disease.
What I meant by my sarcastic remark is that there seems to be absolutely no reason to trust
anything it says, from its content, to the fact that it was created about three months ago
when the Red baiting was already in full swing in the media.
Congratulations! That site is like a who's who of influential critical reporting. I suspect,
as with so many of the bubble-dwellers attempts, that this slapdash but probably overpriced effort
will drive traffic to those sites while reducing the credibility of its promoters. An instant
classic own-goal. I look forward to the inevitable and embarassing revelations about their founders
and funding.
The full list was a mix of really good sites and the unknown personal blogs of some whack-a
-doodles producing "content" of little value. I see the list linked to is smaller.
"Collectively, this propaganda is undermining our public discourse by providing a warped view
of the world, where Russia can do no wrong, and America is a corrupt dystopia that is tearing
itself apart."
Meanwhile publicans even they would deem credible like the L.A. times report there are 63,000
homeless youths in los angeles. Corrupt dystopia? No it can not be.
"It is vital that this effort be exposed for what it is: A coordinated attempt to deceive U.S.
citizens into acting in Russia's interests."
look idiots, the truth as I understand it is neither Russian interest NOR US government interests
are necessarily in my interest
I am an attorney. I am not soliciting or advising any entity or person, but those identified
by PropOrNot, including Naked Capitalism, should consult competent legal counsel, having appropriate
and specific experience regarding defamation law (maybe even in a "pooled," co-ordinated effort
with others' among the over 200 entities named by PropOrNot) to seek a legal opinion as to whether
there exists a viable defamation claim against The Washington Post, and also, via Weisburg, The
New York Times, as both publications repeated potentially defamatory claims made by PropOrNot.
Under general tenets of defamation law (statutory and in common law), it is not just the
original entity or person defaming (including defamation "per se") another that is liable for
such torts, but others who carelessly or recklessly repeat the original defamatory statements/claims
(in this case, both The Washington Post & New York Times bear similar potential liability as PropOrNot).
Understanding the distinction between an attorney, and *my* attorney, and as a matter of general
interest, I am curious: What about individual posters in their capacities as employees, contractors,
or just rabble?
Requires actual malice since it's the media you're suing but that can be proven by reckless
indifference to the truth which this might actually meet the standard of, especially since the
site isn't making this claim based on anything other than the content of the views espoused by
the sites. /also an attorney but the wrong specialty. I'd be pleased to help if I can though
all of the sites I read regularly are on the list and whoever's propaganda op the site is the
whole concept of what it represents scares the pants off me.
All private individual gets you is compensatory damages and everyone's readership and donations
have increased.
"We hold that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define
for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory
falsehood injurious to a private individual. But this countervailing state interest extends
no further than compensation for actual injury. For the reasons stated below, we hold that
the States may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages, at least when liability
is not based on a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth."
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347-349 (1974).
Propornot is directly accusing NC and the rest of a crime (espionage), which constitutes
defamation per se, so I think the only issue before the court would be whether it was done with
reckless indifference.
Seriously, Yves, please feel free to contact me offlist I would be delighted to pro bono
the heck out of this including at the direction of whoever you hire.
The MSM did such a fine job reporting the news during the campaign. (16 anti-Sanders stories
in 16 hours from the WaPo. A new record.) Are small news/opinion sites cutting into their online
advertising revenue. ;)
I like you and your blog, but I'm almost positive your site has been guilty of accidently publishing
Russian propaganda at some point. You've probably linked to stories that sound legit but can be
traced all the way back to some Russian operation like RT, even though the third party source
you got the story from seemed ok.
The creator of the app never said all the sites on the list knowingly did it.
First the fact that a story appeared on RT does not make it propaganda. We featured videos
from Ed Harrison on the RT program Boom/Bust, which is about the US economy and has featured respected
US and foreign academics, like Steve Keen.
What Steve Keen has to say is not suddenly propaganda by virtue of appearing on RT.
If you read Eddy Bernay's book Propaganda, he defines it as an entity or cause promoting its
case. Thus when a news organization that is government-affiliated, like Voice of America or RT,
presents a news story that is straight up reporting, that does not qualify as propaganda either
(like "Marine Le Pen Gains in French Polls"). In fact, for a government site to be seen as credible
when it does present propaganda, it has to do a fair bit of reasonably unbiased reporting.
Second, had you bothered to read the actual PropOrNot site, it accuses all of the sites
listed as being "propaganda outlets" under the influence of "coordinators abroad" (#11 in its
FAQ).
Several individuals on Twitter called this out as libel with respect to NC. And under #7,
PropOrNot asserts that "some" of the sites are guilty of violating the Espionage Act and the Foreign
Agent Registration Act, as in accusing them of being spies and calling for investigation (by implication
of all, since how do you know which is or isn't) by the FBI and DoJ.
And you defend this witch hunt? Seriously? Do you have any idea of what propaganda consists
of? Hint: it is not reporting accurately and skeptically.
Their MSM propaganda isn't working and they see it. They already heavily censor comments
on their MSM sites. Other MSM sights such as Bloomberg closed down comments altogether. Expect
more of that.
And they will take every measure to close down any other independent sites people have turned
to get some truth which millions of us know we aren't getting from the MSM.
Those of us who have a grasp on what is going on in this country will find #7 is very disturbing.
As it tells us what they have in mind to discredit and close down independent sites.
As you know, propaganda doesn't have to [be] false. It can be more about selectively reporting
certain facts or emphasizing certain facts over others to smear your target and mislead people.
Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network
because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in
its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm
sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly
do.
And the site clearly states that some sites are knowingly coordinating with Russian agents
(like RT) and some are likely unaware that they are being influenced. They likely think NC falls
into the unaware category.
I think they should be more specific as to what sites they believe fall into the 'knowingly'
and 'unknowingly' categories, but I also don't believe the app is an entirely crazy idea. Russia
is aggressively trying to influence American politics as we saw in the most recent US election
and coming up with a response is a good idea even if this particular one should be improved.
Um, James what weakens people's confidence in their leaders is their not addressing people's
issues and lying about their inability to do so. Despite protestations from the likes of much
of our 'intelligentsia', mainstream media, and most of our political class, the majority of people
are not stupid. There is a reason why terms like 'lame stream media' resonate with a large number
of people.
For instance when Obama is out there talking about a recovery and people know that there
is no such thing in their lives, their communities then HE has lost their confidence not someone
giving an interview on RT.
Or to put it another way the problem isn't someone going on RT and saying the emperor isn't
wearing clothes, the problem is that the emperor isn't wearing clothes.
Pretending not to notice doesn't mean that no one has noticed. Considering the Washington/NY/California
bubble, most people probably have and have been screaming at their television that he needs to
get dressed.
what did we see in "the most recent election"? what is your evidence that Russia is "aggressively
trying to influence American politics?"
Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him
on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's
confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve
Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian
intelligence certainly do.
How do you know any of this? how would you know would Russian intelligence's goals are,
or how they think of Steve Keen? this is all just McCarthyism 2016, accusing the left of being
dupes or willing agents of Russia. McCarthy had his 200 communists in the state department, this
website and the Washington Post have their 200 Russian propaganda websites. Why are you catapulting
this bullshit?
Well put. I could equally well argue that it's in Russia's interests that American leadership
not be questioned, if it's following policies that are clearly stupid and likely to weaken America's
position in the world. So the PropOrNot site might actually be a double blind backed by Russia,
using fear of Russian influence to manipulate people into uncritical acceptance of their leaders
and prevent questioning of poor decisions, thereby weakening America. (ALERT: If it's not obvious
to readers, this is sarcasm).
If your methodology is gazing into the tea leaves to figure out what Russia's position is,
then smearing anybody that advocates a similar position, then that's such a ridiculously flimsy
veneer of logic that it can be used to reach pretty much any conclusion you like (as my example
above demonstrates). Tell me again who is guilty of propaganda in this scenario?
I suppose all 17 intelligence agencies could be wrong.
And RT has a pattern of inviting dissidents that have extremely negative views of American
leadership. You can say this negative view justified but that doesn't negate the fact that Russia
wants to amplify that discontent as much as possible.
i suppose they still haven't provided any evidence whatsoever. just like you. What 17 agencies?
what evidence are they relying on? Why does Obama say the election was not fixed by Russia, that
there was no ramping up of cyber attacks?
You could be working for David Brock at correct the record. the way you blindly accept the
talking points of the Clinton campaign indicates that. you just keep repeating them, and don't
respond to the criticisms of propornot as a source, or the reporter who uncritically accepted
their little mccarthyite hit list. linking to a usa today article that blindly repeats the same
talking points, again sans evidence, does not support your argument.
I was not claiming Russia fixed the election results. I was referring to the email hacking
directed at the Clinton camp during the election campaign.
And my claim that Russia was likely involved in the email hacking is backed up by 17 intelligence
agencies and reporting from various independent news outlets. If you had bothered to read the
article, which you apparently didn't, you would know that the 17 agencies are the 'Office of the
Director of National Intelligence' plus the 16 agencies listed in the link available in the article
I provided.
If USA Today reporting is not credible to you but Russia Today's reporting is, then I'm afraid
your trust of Kremlin created propaganda outlets over independent news outlets only underscores
my point that Russian information warfare has been very successful at influencing and shaping
parts of American public opinion.
I also don't think US intelligence agencies would make this accusation publicly if they were
not confident. They could have just as easily made this accusation against China but have not
because it doesn't fit China's MO. Russia has engaged in similar types of email hacking operations
in former Eastern European countries it has been seeking to control and influence.
And comparing an app to McCarthyism is absurd. McCarthysim was the state targeting individuals
and organizations. This is private citizens compiling a list by their own accord, which they are
free to do. When a left wing blog makes a list of the top ten most right-wing and GOP influenced
websites, are they also engaging in 'McCarthism'? Is the left engaging in 'McCarthyism' when it
accuses Fox News of being GOP influenced propaganda? C'mon.
Regardless, I am done with this conversation for now. You can think what you want.
James do you happen to remember when those intelligence agencies reported Iraq had Weapons
of Mass Destruction.? How about when North Korea hacked Sony? Both of which were inaccurate and
dare I say it propaganda intended to mislead the American public.
Short of watching the hacking in real time there is no way those agencies would have been able
to trace any competent hacker.So here are some very serious questions for you. Do you think the
Russians hire script kiddies? Why does Naval Intelligence have anything to do with this investigation?
Same with at least half of those agencies?
Why were 17 agencies watching the DNC? Don't they have anything better to do, like
figuring out who hacked the State Department, the IRS and Social Security?
The immediate claims that Russia hacked the DNC were never credible to any one with even
a bit of knowledge about high level hacking. The 17 agency thing was outright laughable once you
asked the simple question of what most of them had to do with this investigation. And USA Today
was and is the print equivalent of the Yahoo front page.
You say you are done, but I sincerely hope so e of what was said here percolates in your thoughts.
Most of us here understand propaganda, misinformation, and yes confirmation bias. You seem to
need to learn to look critically at your usual sources as well as those you have warned about.
Being wrong about something in the past doesn't mean you are always wrong. In fact, the CIA
and FBI have been on the money about countless things in the past, but I'm sure you know this
and are just trying to deflect. And it's not true that NK being involved in the Sony hack has
been debunked. Opinion is mixed among independent security analysts. Look it up.
And I think you should take your own advice as far as confirmation bias and understanding propaganda
are concerned. Nobody who relies on FSB cut outs like RT for information and analysis has room
to talk about their intelligence and critical thinking. NC and other alternative 'anti-establishment'
news sources you consume are full of their own bias. You should wander out of the alt-left echo
chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda.
Mr. Putin isn't a damsel in distress that needs your defending.
oh so now you're an intelligence expert, but somehow you still don't have any evidence,
because the "17 intelligence agencies" don't have any evidence either. they didn't have evidence
of wmd's but i bet you fell for that, too. i think the most dishonest line in your post is this:
You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any
criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda
while you're searching for evidence to back up the rancid propaganda exposed by glenn greenwald's
article in the intercept, you can look for one single post expressing this conviction. just one.
after all the lies by our intelligence agencies, using the same methods as this smear, to uncritically
accept anonymous quotes betrays either a great naοvetι or intellectual dishonesty.
Gee, if only there were some North American country that would try to influence foreign elections,
for example say Russian or Ukrainian ones.
But let me extend James's thought above by advocating for our leaders to obtain public encryption
keys so that we may send our grievances privately without enabling any foreign interference. Won't
that just invigorate our democracy?
If Russia is actively trying to influence American politics, then they have been far more
effective than the US and get a much bigger bang for their buck. For one thing, they didn't have
to drop a single bomb to effect a regime change. So assuming you are correct, the noise is just
a hysterical regime change envy.
So are RT and Sputnik propaganda outlets? Sometimes they are, but sometimes they report
the truth that our MSM, having given up the last shreds of their journalistic integtity in return
for access, won't report.
Given the widespread funding of media (including government-owned media) by Western governments,
I would say that US and Euro hysteria about Russian propaganda, real and imagined, is yet another
off-putting display of noxious American exceptionalism.
I grew up listening to broadcasts of RFE and VOA behind the Iron Curtain, and mixed in
with honest reporting was a heavy dose of propaganda aimed at weakening Eastern European governments.
Now, it is the America For Bulgaria Foundation that funds several media outlets in the country.
What they all have in common is rabid Russophobia-driven editorial stances, and one can easily
conclude that it is driven by the almighty dollar rather than by honest, deeply held convictions.
So, America can do it but whines like a toddler when it is allegedly done to it?! What a crock.
The worst thing is that regardless of whatever propaganda wars are going on, this list
constitutes a full frontal attack on free speech in the alleged "Land of the Free." Besides NC,
there are number of sites distinguished by thorough, quality reporting of the kind that WaPo and
NYT no longer engage in. Having grown up behind the Iron Curtain, this is chilling to me. Dissident
voices speaking against the endless wars for profit and neoliberalism are in effect being intimidated
and smeared by anonymous thugs. This, while the militarized local police and federal agencies,
closely coordinated by "fusion centers", have ruthlessly put down a number of citizen protests,
have engaged in spying on all of us, and have gone after whistleblowers for exposing the reach
and scope of the surveillance state. These are the hallmarks of dictatorships, not of the alleged
"world's greatest democracy and beacon of freedom." What the eff happened to America, and why
are you equating challenging the oppressive and exploitative status quo with being "unwitting
Russian dupes?" Seems to me that the useful idi0t here is you, with all due respect.
American intelligence uses exactly the same tactics, and has since at least WW1. Selling
the American public on the Iraq war is a classic example. Remember that all news is biased, some
much more so than others (we report, you decide.)
The advent of the internet and the subsequent broadening of readily available news of all
slants has made it much harder for any intelligence agency of any specific country to control
the news( but it has made it extremely easy for them to monitor what we are reading).
Naked capitalism uses a wide variety of sources, and obviously has no coordination with any
intelligence agency. The normal tell for this is being state sponsored, or having a big sugar
daddy providing the funding, and Yves doesn't have any of that.
As always, it's up to the reader to use their critical thinking skills and form their own opinions.
Some of us happen to believe that 'lambast[ing] the American political establishment and
weaken[ing] the public's confidence in its leaders' is in the best interests of everyone on the
planet, including the American public. If that constitutes propaganda, I'm not about to look that
gift horse in the mouth. RT isn't perfect I personally find their relentless cheerleading for
economic growth rather wearying but it knocks spots off the competition and consistently sends
me scurrying to the internet to chase up on new faces and leads. I'm grateful for that.
" Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious "
Damning with faint praise. A dainty smear tactic noted as such since the days of .. Shakespeare.
It is obvious that Russia has been trying to influence American politics. The very existence
of RT makes that obvious. What is not obvious is why modestly left-of-center Americans' political
concerns should be subject to McCarthyite attacks in our most influential news outlets. We've
been subject to internally generated far-right propaganda for decades now and have seen minimal,
feeble 'mainstream' efforts to counter it. The far right has done tremendous damage to our nation
and is poised to do much more now that its doyens control all branches of the federal government.
And yet this libelous attack is more focused on left-leaning opinion sites than on the ultra-right.
The latter were thrown into this list almost as window dressing. Conceivably because the far right
is very adept at self-defense. But more because the prestige and financial well-being of the center-"left"
is endangered by the rise of an adversarial, econo-centric left. The insiders from this branch
of our duopoly never have been harmed by their historic "opposition" (Tea Party kooks + corrupt
Beltway Republicans).
What I interpret this as is a strike by 'think tank' grifters against those who are most
likely to damage their incomes, their prestige and their exceedingly comfortable berths on the
Acela corridor. It's a slightly panicky, febrile effort by a bunch of heels who are looking at
losing their mid-6-figure incomes . and becoming like so many of the rest of us: over-credentialed,
under-paid and unable to afford life in the charming white parts of our coastal metropolises.
I was wondering what Brock has been up to since the dissolution of "Correct the Record."
Has it been dissolved or has it morphed into something else? This looks like too seamless a
transition from the Clinton campaign strategy we have all grown to love to the revenge strategy
we have come to expect from such people. I look forward to the discovery portions of the libel
suits to come. Hopefully Yves and Lambert will be taking up a collection for so worthy an enterprise
soon.
You've just libeled me. You have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim. Nor
do you have any evidence that Russia has been "aggressively" trying to influence US politics.
This is one of many hysterical lines offered by Team Dem over the course of this election, up
there with depicting all Trump voters as racist yahoos.
Ed Harrison, who is the producer of the show and replied later in this thread, is the
one who booked Keen and interviewed and other economists and firmly disputes your assertion that
his show has anything to do with promoting an anti-US line. And as a former diplomat, Harrison
would be far more sensitive than most to that sort of issue. I'm repeating his comment below:
Hi Naked Capitalism. I haven't been on this site for some time. But I felt it necessary
to comment due to an ad hominem attack from a commenter "James" regarding the show I produce
at RT called Boom Bust.
From my vantage point as producer at RT, I have been able to see the whole anti-Russia campaign
unfold in all its fury. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I want to restrict my comments
to the specific argument James makes. here:
"it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political
establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of
Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of
his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do."
Since I produce the show that Steve Keen appears on, I am well-placed to give you a view
on this. James' comment is flat out false. What James writes is something he has fabricated
in his imagination connecting dots he believes should be connected based on no first hand
evidence whatsoever.
What actually happens on Boom Bust is this:
Since no one I work with at RT has a sophisticated background in economics, finance or financial
reporting, they give us a wide berth in putting together content for our show with nearly no
top down dictates at all. That means we as American journalists have a pretty much free hand
to report economic news intelligently and without bias. We invite libertarian, mainstream,
non-mainstream, leftist, Democratic commentators, Republican commentators you name it. As
for guests, they are not anti-American in any way shape or form. They are disproportionately
non-mainstream.
We have no pro-Russian agenda. And that is in part because Russia is a bit player on the
economic stage, frankly. Except for sanctions, it has mostly been irrelevant on our show since
inception.
Let me share a strange anecdote on that. We had a guest on our show about three years ago,
early in my tenure. We invited him on because he had smart things to say about the UK economy.
But he had also written some very negative things about Putin and Russia. Rather than whitewash
this we addressed it specifically in the interview and asked him an open-ended question about
Russia, so he could say his piece. I was ASTONISHED when he soft-pedaled his response and made
no forceful case as he had done literally days ago in print. This guy clearly self-censored
for what reason I don't know. But it is something that has stayed with me ever since.
The most important goal from a managerial perspective has been that our reporting is different
i.e. covers missing and important angles of the same storyline that are missing in the mainstream
media or that it covers storylines that are missing altogether.
Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on our show appears "because he lambasts the American
political establishment". This is false. He appears on our show because he is a credible economist
who provides a differentiated view on economics and insight that we believe will help our viewers
understand the global economy. If Paul Krugman had something to say of that nature and would
appear on our show, we would welcome him. In fact, I and other producers have reached out to
him many times to no avail, especially after we had Gerald Friedman give his take on the dust-up
surrounding Bernie Sanders' economic plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yna275KzuDQ
Look, I understand the scepticism about RT and its motives. It IS a state-funded news outlet
with news story angles that sometimes contrast sharply with western media. And it has not been
critical of the Russian government as far as I can tell. But you can't ascribe nefarious motives
to individual economists or reporters based on inaccurate or false third hand accounts. You
are just making things up, creating a false narrative based on circumstantial evidence. This
is just adding to the building peer pressure associated with what almost seems like an orchestrated
campaign to discredit non-mainstream sources of news.
"Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics" Apparently with the help
of Hillz. Was her decision to use a private email server made with the help of Putin?
James, we get it. We US citizens are not to be permitted to criticize our own government or
corporations as that might "weaken public confidence" in our Dear Leaders.
We cannot be trusted to think for ourselves in discerning what is and is not propaganda, for
after all we would be able to discern the same coming from the US side.
The overt stifling of dissent that was such an outrageous feature of the Clinton campaign "is
clearly a goal" of your side.
Who needs Putin when we have mindless ClintonBots to do all the dirty work here?
This is a secular trend, a great wave. If Steve Keen were going on Tass 24 hours a day, seven
days a week, Live!!! With ***Nude*** WOMBATS!!!!, undermining confidence in neoliberal economists
- let me pause to gasp in horror - it would be the merest bit of froth on that wave. Taking Jame's
view as a proxy for the views of the intelligence community, if they really believe this - and
it's not just a ploy for budget time - then the country truly is doomed.
NOTE * Note the authoritarian followership of "leaders." So my response with institutions is
not precisely on point.
The idea that banks were trusted more than organized labor was troublesome to me till I remembered
the labor leaders like Trumka and the continued betrayals of membership by the likes of the AFL
CIO. At that point I got it really was a toss up.
My revenue is suffering because my rag is bullshit, but all these alternatives are unfair competition
- please Mr Government shut them done, because I, the one and only Great Bezos (or Great Bozo),
is loosing money.
If you'd like, take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1959. Then you'll find many criticisms
of US society by the Civil Rights movement sharing the same sinister tone as criticisms made by
Soviet new outlets. Then you'll also find a gaggle of US pols and their minions claiming on that
basis that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run. Then you'll also
find many people who don't bother to distinguish source from story and end up enjoying the official
Kool Aid.
It reminds me of a story from Northern Ireland in the 1960's when the leader of a civil
rights march was asked by a BBC reporter 'is it true that your organisation has been infiltrated
by radicals and communists?' His reply was to sigh and say 'I f**king wish it was true'.
@hemeantwell This same claim of communist inspiration and connection was also thrown
at the anti-war movement. I remember arguing with a friend of my parents in the summer of 1969,
after my freshman year at college where I was active in the anti-war and anti-draft movements.
After countering all of the arguments made by this gentleman, he was left with nothing to say
but "Well, that's the Commie's line " as a final dismissal.
'US pols and their minions claiming that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired,
funded, and run.'
Right up to his death on 4 Apr 1968, Martin Luther King was accused by J. Edgar Hoover
and the FBI of "knowingly, willingly and regularly cooperating with and taking guidance from communists."
Now there's a US national holiday in King's honor.
That same year, my dad visited Moscow and Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring. After he
returned, we started receiving crudely mimeographed newsletters from Moscow - actual Soviet
propaganda , delivered right to our mailbox in Texas.
So laden were they with hoary old Marxist rhetoric that we started satirizing it in our underground
student newspaper, mocking the public school administration as "capitalist running dogs" and "colonialist
oppressors." (This did not go over well.)
To his regret, my dad sent one of the Soviet flyers to the FBI, but never got a reply. He suspected
that they put him on a watch list, rather than investigating how the Soviets were distributing
their crude invective through the US mail.
So laden were they with hoary old Marxist rhetoric that we started satirizing it in our underground
student newspaper, mocking the public school administration as "capitalist running dogs" and "colonialist
oppressors." (This did not go over well.)
They link American propaganda all the time. If you take off your blinders, you'll find that
most news is just propaganda, because the basis for most news stories is what person X says. What's
sad is that people like you believe there is some kind of "objective" news source in the "free
world" that is telling it like it is. There isn't and there never has been.
It's all propaganda of one sort or another. I exhort you to read Plato and understand that
the Sophists for which Socrates held so much ire are much the same as anon and administration
sources for so much of what drives journalism.
I have identified a motif that pretty much always gives away a Hillary bot- it was used about
several dozen thousand times as part of 'Correct the Record' during the runup to November 8. And
here we have it again. It goes like this: I was always in favor of (fill in the
blank with the supposed offenders name) until I found out this 'truth'.
Also, why not just admit you are a Clinton Supporter who finds it convenient that a lot of
the sites could be trashed for being critical of HRC
Let me just make a list of the weasel words (setting aside the famous "I like you, but ____"
trope, which I have never yet seen used in good faith in all my many years of blogging, partly
because of the assumption that whether a random commenter "likes" the blog is important.
almost positive
guilty of accidentally
at some point
probably linked (but with no evidence)
can be traced (but not by James!)
some . operation like
The ginormous pile of steaming innuendo and faux reasonableness aside, James seems to think
that the NC readership has no critical thinking skills at all. Apparently, NC readers are little
children who need expert guidance from James and his ilk - bless their hearts! - to distinguish
crap from not crap.
If there is any take away from this foul
Bernays-inspired campaign season, it is
that fear can and will overrule reason completely.
Half of the voters (whichever lost) were set up
for a cognitive dissonance cork blowing episode.
No one should expect reason to be an effective defense against cognitive attempts to rectify that
dissonance .neither side can be unplugged
from their self-selected news matrix, without
blowing their cork. It will not matter that this list
is comical, because it is a dog whistle to the
audience preloaded with fear (and the other side would've done a variation of the thene if they
had lost).
(pretty funny of them to list your site though..I guess
the Russians must've also been quite upset by all
the American mortage fraud in housing bubble #1
and felt a need to head explodes)
I suppose this comment will add me to some list maintained by some very frightened but misguided
people? What's the line "lighten up, Francis"?
This has all the earmarks of an effort by the Nuland Neocons that joined Camp Hillary,
and now in defeat constitute a portion Hillary's professional dead enders.
Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march. It has powerful allies
in the intelligence community, the media and actors on the world stage who deem Trump to be an
existential threat to America and world. The story of Russian inspired fake news is paving the
way for regime change, an HRC specialty. The recount is the tip of the spear. If they can pull
this coup off, sites like this will move from the useful idiot category to the enemy of the state
category overnight.
The brilliance of this move will eliminate all possibly of civil unrest since America democracy
will be saved from a Russia threat that requires a declaration of war and severe restrictions
on media freedom.
I can guarantee you Trump is looking over his shoulder and sees it coming and is working furiously
to build a case for his own legitimacy. He is doing his best to sound normal.
Obama has relegated himself to the sidelines. He hates conflict, but will back Hillary if she
can pull it off.
"Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march." True that. Even a lost election
can't stop them. Heard over the holiday- Andrew Cuomo for prez. So the same people who didn't
show up to vote for Hillz can now not show up to vote for her waterboy/bagman.
For sure. The "history doesn't repeat but it rhymes" is suddenly sickeningly applicable here.
I hope they've bitten off more than they can chew in this case. There is that argument that
we are "siloing" in our little corners of the web, however everybody read the newspapers and
listed to the radio back then. Which means a very, very small subset of the population set the
agenda. Nowadays, the "far-left" and "far-right" are only a click away from each other (and they
always did seem to have more in common with each other than the center which has gone from mushy
to absolutely rotten). A unified pushback on this is not impossible and who knows where it might
lead?
Aha, I have solved the mystery. It is elementary my dear Watson! The PropOrNot site is
itself a Russian propaganda ploy on the part of the KGB! What? errr, ok, the FSB then. By
adding sites such as the Naked Capitalism site to the list, it will be discredited in its entirety
thus letting the nefarious Russian propaganda websites be given a free pass. Mystery solved! And
sorry Max but "Naked Capitalism" a leading left-wing financial news blog"? I'd rather label it
a practical and empirical financial news blog myself.
Seriously, I am wondering if something else is going on here ("tin-foil hat" mode on) with
this piece of trash. No doubt people here have heard all the cries of "fake news" since the election.
This was on top of months of claims of Russian hacking of the election which is still ongoing
(cough cough, Jill Stein). Now Merkel is screaming blue murder of probable Russian hacking of
the German elections next year and just this week the EU Parliament has passed a resolution which
in part states that Russian media exists to "undermine the very notion of objective information
or ethical journalism," and one of its methods is to cast all other information "as biased or
as an instrument of political power."
I am given to understand that the military use the term "preparing the battlefield" and that
is what I think that we are seeing here. There have already been calls for FaceBook and Google
to implement censorship of "fake news" which will amount to censorship of social and news feeds
the same media Trump used to bf the entire news establishment in this years election. Could
we be seeing the beginnings of calls to censor the internet? All to fight terrorism and black
propaganda of course. The Left would have absolutely no problem with this and if was used to get
rid of sites that contrasted the mainstream media's narrative, more people would be forced to
use the mainstream media for their news which would make them happy. Something to think about.
And sorry Max but "Naked Capitalism" a leading left-wing financial news blog"? I'd rather
label it a practical and empirical financial news blog myself.
While the level of discussion here is generally at a much deeper level than most sites and
commenters don't fit into neat little ideological boxes, I don't think it's a particularly egregious
generalization to call a site with readers that overwhelmingly support things like financial regulation,
single-payer health care and post-office banking "left-wing".
But Max himself is an interesting character. I've been scratching my head wondering how
a guy one step removed (Sidney Blumenthal) from the Clintons' inner circles is ambitious about
exposing the ludicrous claims made by those same people regarding Palestine and Syria.
The list of news sites on the said fact-free, unsourced, anonymous webpage are all, so far
as I can tell, news sites that have disagreed with neocon foreign policy preferences on several
occasions.
I am so tired of the use of "left" and " right" and "progressive" and "libertarian" that when
I see these words I go off into a daze. These words are bandied about in so many different ways
for so many different reasons, that they have almost become meaningless. I would rather that people
or organizations be described in detail who supposedly have these "left" "right" etc. characteristics,
then I would know what was being claimed.
yes, and one good way to that sort of detailed description is to read here regularly for a
while: there's hardly any political self-tagging or confessional drama going on, but any one person's
comments over a few months do add up to a picture of how her/his life experience, unlabelled political
principles, intellectual ( not the same as academic!) background and style of spontaneous
reaction (yes Mr Mencken, 'humor!) all fit together. And this gradually reveals a lot more than
Left-Right status updates or biographical oversharing ever could: not so much about the person
- who has a right to all the unknownness s/he wants - but about the experiences and reasoning
that might connect a statement that delights you and another that leaves you aghast when both
come from the same person and within about a dozen lines. And all this with no fuzzy-fake "consensus"
in sight: mutual respect across abyssal differences is hard-won and correspondingly cared for.
"The internet" still gets blamed for "ruining face-to-face interaction" by people who probably
flatter themselves about the richness of their past social lives. But I can't imagine when I'll
ever have a spare few years and some mysterious money (not to mention some "social skills" and
a valid passport ) with which to visit Maine, Oregon, Arizona, Buenos Aires (etc etc etc) for
extended casual conversations there. In the absence of that option, whatever you all have the
patience to write here counts as THE escape route out of political parochialism and geographical
niche.
I like the idea some commenter had (too lazy to find it right now) that all these strategems
were long-prepared, and in place for a Clinton victory. Now the Clinton faction in the political
class is deploying them anyhow. They'd better hurry, because influence peddling at the Clinton
Foundation
isn't as lucrative as
it once was .
Surely any site that accepts donations could be funded by a foreign power without knowing?
ps A couple of my students make 50p a post for challenging negative posts on travel websites by
making up how great was their experience.
And, um, so what? They can waste money anywhere they want. How much has the US spent over my
lifetime propagandizing the Middle East and how did that work out?
The Neera Tandeen tweet is revealing in that it shows how hypocritical all the pearl-clutching
was over Trump's complete lack of discretion in pushing bogus and fabricated stories. A cursory
glance through the rest of her feed shows a bunch of equally thoroughly scrutinized claims that
the Putin/Comey/Deplorables triumvirate conspired to steal the election from the forces of Good.
For long time readers this russian(chinese) propaganda should be obvious. And it is ok,
get used to it. Great opportunity to learn "how to read between the lines", and when you understand,
solidifying into a basic skill.
"The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent." and now you have a good ones,
not a cheap wapo columnist but organised, educated, trained information warfare hacks.
we are on the early days, more to come, much worse to come.
Be careful NC. MSM are in panic. They see that their propaganda is less and less effective
and start targeting those who offer an alternative against their obsolete narratives. Be prepared:
when they will realize that these don't work at all, their fake democracy will become an open
dictatorship.
I loved naked capitalism's election coverage, but here is an anecdote of how it angered conventional
liberals.
I read a particle physics blog by Columbia mathematician Peter Woit, who wrote an election
post-mortem (he occasionally writes about politics). Not Even Wrong is one of the most popular
blogs in theoretical physics, I've several excellent physicists post in the comments to previous
entries. I was very surprised to see Woit blame naked capitalism (and others) for the electoral
defeat of Hillary Clinton, he's a very conventional thinker normally so I would have expected
him to not even know about naked capitalism. I'm still surprised he knew about it.
My guess? There is a lot of communication in the country between people who do read some of
these 200 news media organizations, with the vast majority who stick to conventional sources such
as the NYT, the WSJ, and who think that Vox and The Atlantic are intellectual sources. When people
get exposed to alternative media for the first time, even educated people, their most likely response
is some combination of anger, laughter, and asking if the writer also believes that 9/11 is an
inside job.
I hate to get tin foily, but that blog is typical of a few I've seen expressing real anger
at the amorphous 'left' for not getting on board the Hilary train. There is an element of vengefulness
in some of the writing and combined with the evidence of the article above, it seems there is
an element within the establishment (the losing half) who are in full on McCarthy mode and of
course the first stage of a purge is to accuse the targets of being traitors and in the pay of
foreign interests. Trump and the people around him are dangerous of course, but I think a defeated
neolib/neocon establishment is equally dangerous. We are in worrying times, and its not just the
far right we have to be worried about.
Woit also includes the NYT in his list of culprits so I don't know what planet he resides.
Also interesting to note his jetting off to Paris as tonic. Oh the humanity!!
It's incredible how many otherwise smart people can't think for themselves.
Once a newspaper touches a story the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonist. -Norman
Mailer
I am unable to understand how a man of honor can take a newspaper in his hand without a
shudder of disgust. -Charles Baudelaire
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but
newspapers. -Thomas Jeffereson
Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper. -Thomas Jefferson
If you're not careful, the newspaper will have you hating people being oppressed and loving
the people doing the oppressing -Malcolm X
Journalism is organized gossip. -Edward Egglestone
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read it, you are misinformed.
-Mark Twain (allegedly, but it could be misinformation)
It's hard to know what to believe! You can believe your own eyes, but even your mind connects
the dots without you knowing it.
This is not the Washington Post's finest hour - although they probably haven't had one of those
for years at this point. I'm down to the Redskins coverage in the WaPo, which is still quite good
actually.
I used to be a Washington Post paper boy, so I'l put one last quote from Charles Osgood
It was while making newspaper deliveries, trying to miss the bushes and hit the porch, that
I first learned about accuracy in journalism
-Charles Osgood
I notice that Woit has disabled comments on this particular post (all other posts have comments
enabled). Probably he justifies it by telling himself that he is running a physics related blog
and isn't interested in promoting discussion on non-physics related matters like politics (but
he still wants to promote his own political opinions on his physics blog!). It's typical of the
fingers-in-the-ears reaction that ivory tower liberals to Trump's win.
Calling Susan out by name, misrepresenting her viewpoints, and then turning of comments is
completely indefensible.
I always felt he has needlessly politicized string theory research l by making his case against
it primarily in popular science books and on his blog rather than in peer-reviewed journals and
academic papers. Since when is it a good idea to let public perception influence our scientific
whims? Whether or not his arguments are valid is beside the point, it wasn't the right way to
go about attempting to influence the field.
I am re-posting the following from an insightful comment on the Liberty Blitzkrieg report on
this scam site:
"The anonymous "executive director" of the Propornot website, quoted by the Washington Post,
was mostly a likely a "senior military intelligence" impostor cum serial teen pornographer named
Joel Harding. He is facing a lawsuit over the copyright infringement of Internet-distributed (teen)
pornography (Case No. 1:16-cv-00384-AJT-TCB) in the US District Court for the eastern district
of Virginia, Alexandria division. This is in the public domain.
BTW, Harding's fellow trolls have been known to ascribe the rank of Brig Gen to their pathetic
troll leader in private messages to the unsuspecting.
No wonder Joel Harding wished to remain the anonymous "executive director" whose laughably
scientific work was quoted by Washington Post. But why didn't Washington Post's Craig Timberg
check this up? Basic journalistic checks thrown out of the mixed gender bathroom window? Details
of Harding's trolling activities are available on the very Internet that is trolled by Joel Harding
through his 3,000-odd troll sites.
And to think that I used to be an avid reader of Washington Post's science and Technology reports
now galls me.
There is a growing assumption that the patriotic paranoid activities of Joel Harding and associates
are a cover for their Ukrainian teen pornography distribution business."
The US MSM is all propaganda all the time-every bit as bad as Pravda ever was. RT now is
the "anti-propaganda." They were even carrying Jesse Ventura and other Americans who are blacklisted
by the MSM.
A hail mary pass that was intercepted by the opposing team and run back for a touchdown.
Methinks the WaPo, "PropOrNot", and the rest of the MSM involved with this stunt are going
to have a lesson in The Streisand Effect. Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg (whom I greatly
admire BTW) has said he already has many new followers and donors.
What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I feel
like I missed some important public dis somewhere that would explain it all. Condoleeza Rice's
general dated anti-Soviet attitude I could understand, but that doesn't explain the escalating
bigotry pouring out of Obama and Clinton (and their various surrogates). Is it a case of a bomb
in search of a war?
Looks to me like it came out of the HRC campaign. LOL James Carville was talking about
the KGB tampering with the vote tally .not knowing they've been out of business since 1991. The
whole thing makes absolutely no sense, and it won't fly with the American public, many of whom
watch RT, or may be married to or dating Russians. Even Randy Newman likes Putin enough to write
a song about him.
The funny thing is it's been an open secret that the Democratic party has known about electronic
voting fraud (always swinging to the Right) for years but refuses to go near the subject publicly
supposedly because they didn't want people to lose faith in election results and stop voting.
The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the
presidential election , it has concluded that the results "accurately reflect the will of the
American people."
From the NYT article you mention. It is now axiomatic that the Putin government was actively
attempting to subvert our election. This despite the fact that absolutely no compelling evidence
has ever been given.
After the nineties opening foreign influence was accepted and russia started integrating into
the western world. Some years later the resurged nationalist kicked out western companies, broke
cultural-social contacts.
West is made on free trade-free business-free ideas flow. if russia not trading on common terms,
west gonna take it by force. and russia holds one-fourth of fresh water, one-fifth of world forests,
one sixth of arable but never before used land, and never before properly explored mineral wealth.
All these can help to secure a prosperous 21.century for the west.
Same like before the american conquest, only difference now local indigenous people wield nuclear
weapons and have unlimited chinese support, so no rush let them make mistakes. (and they do, ukraine-syria-azerbaijan
just the latest)
I don't think there is an easy answer to your question, but I think it goes around to the
failed Ukrainian coup (well, partially failed) and the realisation within a certain element of
the neocon establishment that Putin had been inadvertently strengthened by their policy failures
in the Ukraine and Syria. I think there was a concerted element within the Blob to refocus on
'the Russian threat' to cover up their failures in the Middle East and the refusal of the Chinese
to take the bait in the Pacific.
This rolled naturally into concerns about cyberwar and it was a short step from there to
using Russian cyberespionage to cover up the establishments embarrassment over wikileaks and multiple
other failures exposed by outsiders. As always, when a narrative suits (for different reasons)
the two halves of the establishment, the mainstream media is always happy to run it unquestioningly.
So in short, I think its a mixture of genuine conspiracy, mixed in with political opportunism.
Don't forget Snowden and Assange. The intelligence community is, I'm sure, furious about those
two. With Snowden still in Russia, it's basically a weeping sore on the intelligence community's
face. Those people do not like exposure at all.
I remember that, shortly after Snowden's revelations, the war drums really started to beat
for Syria.
In all success* is the seeds of failure. Once upon a time, the "beating of war drums" was a
great distraction from whatever ill's were currently affecting a nation. But the US now has such
an overwhelming military that not only is there absolutely no threat to the US land mass, but
for a given person there are at least two degrees of freedom between them and anybody actually
involved in these wars themselves. We lost a soldier ONE soldier on Thanksgiving day and sure
it was all over the news but how many USians actually know even a member of his family, let alone
him? About zero to a first approximation.
So it just isn't working as a distraction. TPTB I don't think really get that yet.
*the word success here is used in a morally neutral sense
Likewise don't forget Chelsea/Bradley Manning! He was the one who put WikiLeaks on the map
and is now paying a horrible price for his courage and love of humanity. His name is constantly
dropped from the list of whistle blower heroes. Why? Because of his gender ambiguity? Whatever
his gender Manning is an American hero worth remembering.
I think that's about right PlutoniumKun but I would add your moniker the US is gonna spend
a FORTUNE (I TRILLION dollars using Austin Powers voice) updating our nuclear arsenal. Can't really
justify using ISIS, so the Soviet boogyman has to be resurrected .
A friend of mine is convinced that Obama and the Beltway crowd have never gotten over Russia
giving asylum to Edward Snowden. If you look at the timing between Snowden's revelations and the
U.S. ginning up its anti-Russia talk and activities, there is some correlation.
What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late?
That is very good question and it does not have a simple answer. I have been pondering
this for 8 years now. The latest bout of Russia-hatred began as Putin began to re-assert their
sovereignty after the disastrous Yeltsin years. This intensified after Georgia, Ukraine and Syria.
In adddition the US was preprogrammed to hate Russia for historical reasons. Mostly because of
the Soviet era but also when the US inherited the global empire from the Brits we also got some
of their dislike of the Russian empire dating back to the 19th century.
It all started when Putin arrested the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, when Putin
put a stop to the shock therapy looting of Russia by the Harvard mafia and Jeffrey Sachs. Didn't
he know that oligarch's are above the law? They are in the US. Didn't he know that money can buy
you immunity from prosecution like it does in Europe and the US? Can't have that, hence the Ukraine,
deprive him of his warm water naval base. Then there was the Crimean referendum. Out smarted again!
Can't have that!
Yes. There was a Michael Hudson piece posted here in 2014 that lays it all out. Apparently
those wanting to bring "democratic institutions" to Russia haven't given up yet.
This Propornot outfit has all the makings of a National Endowment for Democracy scam, including
its sudden appearance in the Post, which has been publishing crazy regime-change-esque editorials
on Russia for more than two years now.
It's all my fault. I studied Russian in high school (4 years) and college (1 year), and even
subscribed to Pravda briefly in college (as did all of my classmates) to improve reading skills.
I also spent a month in Russia in 1971. This is how I became a dirty commie. By commenting on
NC a half dozen times in the past, I have forever tainted it. Sorry!
BTW, what is the W3C approved sarcasm tag? /sarc or /s?
I also took 4 years of Russian in HS. When in the Cold War, it is best to understand your opponents
(not enemies), rather than be ignorant. That is how one can play chess and win and yes, it is
as much a matter of intimidation and annoyance, as it is cold calculation. Bobby Fischer vs Boris
Spassky. States have no enemies. Former allies become opponents and vice versa pragmatism rules.
Well Joe McCarthy was a Republican so this is yet another example of Democrats taking on that
mantle of paranoid fear and war-mongering. Flipping Clintons, the best Republican President and
candidate the Dems could come up with.
The MSM can no longer fool the people that there has been an economic recovery, that is why
nobody believes the media anymore and that is why Donald Trump won the election. Watching news
today is like watching a bad puppet show. The masses are finally waking up to the fact that their
government has sold them down the river to big corporations and predatory bankers. Took the sheeple
long enough.
It's an idiotic new red scare, and I can tell you the well credentialed, supposedly smart liberals
in my circles will eat it right up. Their critical thinking is completely out the window at this
point, and they'll accept apparently anything to avoid coming to terms with Clinton having lost
to Trump. It's terrifying.
9. Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize
investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on your
screen is there to harm you. Bookmark PropOrNot and other sites that investigate foreign propaganda
pushes.
It was so jarring I kept reading that last sentence, thinking I'd missed the snark. Fully expected
it to end with "as an example," not to lend it cred.
The article you mention in In These Times is by Timothy Snyder :), who despite being a well-known
historian is no mean propagandist himself, having suggested that the Ukrainians not the Soviets
liberated Auschwitz.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/03/07/crimea-putin-vs-reality/
Timothy Snyder is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. That he would recommend PoN
is at least a small indication of who stands behind it. Snyder is has given bad odor to the term
"historian" over the past three years. He is to objective history what Bernays was to objective
journalism.
Snyder: "The army group that liberated Auschwitz was called the First Ukrainian Front." The
NYR of Books has suppressed the comment section on its blog, probably to spare Snyder the embarrassment
of having his howlers pointed out by readers.
Ah so, thanks to you both. Two tells made me suspicious: lots of apparently good advice, then
the little drop of poison just nonchalantly dropped in the mix; and Yale historian ;) .
My comment there hasn't made it out of moderation yet. But someone else tore into him for the
same reason I did, recommending PoN:
Because you have no idea who the hell they are, anymore than anyone else does, they've just
released a list of non-MSM news sites that they disagree with. They smear long running and
well trusted sites as "propaganda" outlets without offering any evidence or stating any sort
of methodology. You have litereally abandoned the professional ethic which ought to go along
with being a published.historian and University professor purely because it makes you FEEL
BETTER.
I just asked him, as a Yale historian, to please tell us how the list was compiled, or at least
give some reason for his unqualified recommendation. I went on to say that I read several of the
sites listed, esp. Counterpunch and of course, NC. Even helpfully provided a link to this article,
saying the idea that NC pushes foreign propaganda is ludicrous, and the WaPo article was being
thoroughly debunked here.
Ended with "I call upon the author to explain! (h/t Nick Cave)"
More likely, what "truth" 'they' are trying to manufacture. (When did the new 'owners' take
up the reins at WaPo? There might be a correlation, and a causation involved)
This is why I'm looking forward to any legal cases that may arise out of this - I plan to follow
such *very* closely. Would love to see discovery documents upon the editorial and ownership staff
. the legal equivalent of a public enema, "you shall have no more secrets "
After all, didn't Fox News win a case essentially stating that it was OK to flat out lie and
fabricate from whole cloth? Then why can't Democrat media organs do likewise?
Why didn't I think of that earlier? "Political Infotainment." If my reading serves me right,
I was under the impression that newspapers of a hundred years ago and earlier displayed their
political allegiances openly. A reader could easily work out the underlying story from separating
"story" from "interpretation." Now, news outlets are supposedly impartial and pure of heart. Yet
another cherished myth bites the dust. Perhaps it is better this way.
Based on the evidence of above mentioned link, this "PropOrNot" can be part of a project
of U.S. government to manipulate media to create an anti-Russia climate or more likely another
method of attack on what they consider "Left" so status quo in economic policies of U.S. can be
maintained.
What is going on with the press/MSM lately? It is like one big game of mind control. Is that
what journalism is for to persuade people to do what the system wants them to do and I hope
I am not stretching here but a la Bernays? I mean when I think about this it is really sort of
terrifying as the MSM has done little else but constantly broadcast to people that life in America
is just fine and everyone is happy when in fact the opposite is true there is a lot of hardship
out there since the financial crisis, a lot of people never recovered, millions or tens of millions.
So how can people not be drawn to alternative news sites which thankfully are quite abundant now
and want political change? It just seems like the WaPo, NYT are living in this one little sliver
of opulence and prosperity while the rest of us just shake our heads and wonder what has happened
to this country, especially as we see their darling was not voted in as President. So now they
are striking out and attempting to smear the reputations of good sites, And what is this fake
news thing I am not on social media and have no idea what the fake news is is it about the
pizza places? And why are the social media sites being censored I had read on zh that when the
Comey story hit before the election that that news was not trending at all which was very strange
according to those who would know better.
I don't know where all this fear is coming from in the MSM but I imagine they have lost their
grasp of the American mind. I worry every time I tune in that I am being lied to and misled for
a reason. A political reason. I grew up in the 50's and remember real journalism and I want it
back. I want to know what is really going on. Everywhere.
It has worked for a hundred years, since WWI and the Creel Commission, the destruction of a
vibrant American Left. Imagine the panic in the boardroom suites, the millennials no longer think
that socialism is a bad word, and supported an aging leftist for president. OMFG! It's all Russia's
fault providing an alternate plausible narrative. Can't have that. Outsourcing jobs to Asia, burdening
college students with immense debts, incredible corruption personified by the Queen of Wall Street
couldn't have anything to do with it. All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It's finally happened, they have over reached and are about to fall off the edge. Relish the panic.
When everything hits the fan, I'll be glad to have you other filthy propagandists in the FEMA
camp alongside me, breaking rocks, eating gruel, and discussing the path to insanity.
I really wish that reporters like those at the Post and the Times had done us all a favor and
walked into the ocean after their abysmal election coverage. Why anyone listens to these outlets
anymore is a question that I ponder at night, staring at the ceiling, wondering what the hell
happened to my country.
On PropOrNot's list is usslibertyveterans.org, which might be an indication its neocon origins.
The site has few articles, no comments and its visit counter shows under 3,800 hits. It looks
like it was created 4 months ago. It is propaganda because?
Their
stats page shows that ProOrNot's strategy might backfire. Yesterday was a record day for hits.
Or maybe usslibertyveterans.org is a fishing lure.
Who could possibly have a problem with a site on the USS Liberty? Certainly narrows down the
list of suspects considerably, assuming it wasn't a deliberate false track. For those not familiar
with the USS Liberty, it was the USN ship attacked, nearly sunk with heavy casualties, by Israel
in 1967. A lot of military still have bitterness towards Israel and the American leadership due
to the lack of justice and cover-up over that incident.
The surrounding of "Russian propaganda" with the letter 'y' reminds me a bit of
this :
(((Echo))) is a symbol used by anti-Semitic members of the alt-right to identify certain
individuals as Jewish by surrounding their names with three parentheses on each side. The symbol
became a subject of online discussions and media scrutiny in June 2016 after Google removed
a browser extension that automatically highlights Jewish surnames in the style.
Note that Israel has a lot to lose if Trump pulls the US out of the Middle East. Here's some
Russian propaganda on the issue:
Tila Tequila's Descent Into Nazism Is A Long Time Coming
The self-proclaimed "alt-reich queen" has a long history of anti-Semitism, and an even longer
one of internet trolling.
Again unless this is a false lead, these guys are looking more and more Israeli or Israeli
sympathizers. Other tweets per Greenwald at same link also suggest a pretty low maturity level.
Possibly kids or college level??
This is a lot worse than "Yellow Cake" and it scares the pants off me. This is the "Official
line", signed off on by the editors of WaPo. Think about that for a minute. And then think about
the campaign to get the EC to enthrone HRC.
Trump dissed the MSM and they are pissed off, so are their masters who wanted Obama to slide
through TPP in the period between Hillary's win and the inauguration. They blew more than $1Billion
on a loser and they may have decided that losing is not acceptable and that it will be HRC on
the throne, whatever it takes. The recklessness displayed by the MSM here is breathtaking at a
moment when the USA is more divided than it has been since the election of 1860.
I'm with you Tom Stone. There is nothing funny about this. The MSM at this point is the
greatest purveyor of fake news on the planet, I am talking about not just CNN and Fox, but the
BBC, France24 and so on.
Pretty much everything they have said and every video they has shown on east Aleppo is
either a lie or a fake. As someone noted the other day (I can't remember who) if the stories about
east Aleppo were actually true, then the Russians and Syrians have destroyed approximately 900
hospitals including the 'last pediatric hospital in east Aleppo' which has been completely demolished
on at least three separate occasions in the last few months. The main stream outlets don't even
try to be consistent.
The people who run things here and in Europe are apparently desperate and this latest
move is an indication of how desperate they actually are. It is indeed scary.
I am publicly apologizing to Sarah Palin who I used to think was a dingbat for all of her criticism
of the MSM aka Lame stream media. She was far, far more correct than I ever thought possible.
But look at the silver lining how many people like me who thought that the large media got
the essential facts correct can now see how much we're being fed pure propaganda .how much of
what you see depends on what your looking for .
Weapons of Mass Distraction. Another nail in the coffin of credibility of the NYT and WaPo.
Recall after the Stupid War and how there were zero weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq
that the NYT and Wapo declined to mention or explore their own culpability in beating the drums
of war. This will be more of the same.
"Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters.
Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several
levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps
too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed
against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about
Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into
question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all."
So the Times DID admit some culpability, but it wasn't as if the Times volunteered to donate
a portion of their profits(deepen their losses?) to help Iraqi victims or US soldiers and their
families.
And given the Times Syria coverage, where even the sanctimonious Nick Kristof (August 28, 2013)
called on for Obama to bomb Syria for credibility reasons, nothing has changed at the Times.
"Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious behavior like genocide
or the use
of chemical weapons. Since President Obama established a "red line" about chemical weapons use,
his
credibility has been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."
The Times playbook is to parrot what TPTB wants to do and then if the readers subsequently
revolt in disgust, apologize later.
After I quit my digital subscription to the Times, it seems I'm limited to 10 articles/month.
This might be more than the safely recommended monthly dose of the NYTimes.
The dissimulation, the feigned ignorance (the irony). During the 1930s, the New York Times
actually acted as propaganda agents for Stalin. They collaborated with the Soviet Security Services
to prevent the rescue of millions of Ukrainian peasants (deplorables).
"In 1932 Duranty received a Pulitzer Prize for a series of reports about the Soviet Union,
11 of them published in June 1931. He was criticized then and later for his denial of widespread
famine (193233) in the USSR, most particularly the mass starvation in Ukraine. Years later, there
were calls to revoke his Pulitzer; The New York Times, which submitted his work for the prize
in 1932, wrote that his articles constituted "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper."
Editors were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper.
And there you have it, boys and girls, the one driving force behind journalism as practiced
in the corporate media. If I had been paid for every time I was told to fudge a story lest the
local broadcast stations break it first, I would have been able to pay my mortgage.
This whole Russian propaganda campaign is nothing more then elites attempting to slam shut
the Overton Window that the Trump campaign has pried open a bit this year. This article explains
why they will most likely fail:
I suspect that PropOrNot's outburst was developed during the campaign by well heeled and
connected Hilary supporters to be unveiled after the election to muzzle increasingly influential
web sites including NC. As it stands PropOrNot shot a blank. If Hilary had won the campaign against
"fake news" would probably have taken on a more ominous tone.
Wolf mentioned that the list will function as a dog-whistle for money - that is, advertisers
- telling them about the dangerous places. Maybe not shooting a blank in the short run. In the
long run, of course, advertisers will follow the eyeballs anywhere.
The MSM became so biased during the Presidential election, it drove many Americans toward social
media where you could at least view campaign speaches unfiltered. The same process is now being
applied in the support of manmade climate change alarmism with hopefully the same result
i think you meant the same process is applied in the support of oil company propaganda. the
msm slavishly supported the pro fracking clinton, slavishly acted for years as if there were an
actual scientific debate, instead of fossil fuel shills vs scientists.
I really hope this doesn't get buried in the comments, because it's important to note that
Ames is actually incorrect. He would have been right as recently as 3 years ago but no longer
is.
The provisions of the Smith-Mundt act that prevented materials produced by the BGG from being
used for domestic purposes were repealed by the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (actually
passed in 2013, when incorporated into the NDAA), which states:
The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated
or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation,
dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United
States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures,
the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information
centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication.
It also contains a provision that supposedly prevents the BBG from influencing domestic public
opinion, yet also says the following.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting
Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or
indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program
material, or based on a presumption of such exposure.
Worth noting: passed under Obama and discounted at the time but venues such as Mother Jones,
who did the heavy lifting of telling progressives they were paranoid.
I am guessing the proviso you quote may have been intended to cover the possibility of people
in places like Florida hearing broadcasts aimed at Cuba or other targets, but it certainly raises
questions.
What I find most despicable in all this is the cowardice of these people making up their accusations
and refusing to say who they are. Beneath contempt.
As a loophole it's not perfect (the intent of the primary provision it qualifies seems rather
clear on its face), but we're talking about people who wrote elaborate memos justifying torture
and extra judicial murder, and who went before Congress (i.e. Holder) to claim that "due process"
does not necessarily mean "judicial process." A loophole like that is more than enough to judge
such activities legal enough. I certainly can't imagine anyone in the current administration prosecuting
it.
In regards to all this 'fake news' and 'Russian propaganda' hysteria, one potential problem
I keep seeing mentioned is that certain sites could be banned from FleeceBook thereby destroying
these sites' page hits and ad revenue.
I don't use the FleeceBook so I guess I don't understand how this works. I can come to this
or any other website any time I want so why would I care that it's been banned by FleeceBook?
I don't remember exactly how I first heard of NC but I'm guessing I followed a link from one of
the other left-leaning sites I read regularly (which coincidentally also are authored by Boris
Badinov according to the WaPo). Is FB sort of like AOL back in the day where AOL users thought
they were surfing the intertubes but in reality were in some sort of AOL-approved pen? And if
that's the case I have to wonder how long it will be before FB becomes just like AOL is today,
ie mainly used by the less internet savvy. I already hear rumors that the youngsters consider
FB something only old people use.
I am genuinely interested if anyone can explain this would it really hurt websites that much
to be banned by FB? Wouldn't there be a backlash against FB for doing so?
PS: The thing that made me start using NC as my go-to source for news besides the excellent
original financial reporting was the fact that you guys started including regular links to sites
like BAR, Counetrpunch, etc that I was already reading anyway. I feel like I can read here without
missing out on what was going on elsewhere there's only so much one can read in a day. Keep
up the great work!
I would assume that's how they intend to hurt these sites, but we get virtually no traffic
from Facebook. However, being banned from FB would seriously dent out policy influence.
Unfortunately, Faceborg is the best way for me to stay in touch with certain people. For example,
it has a closed group called FDL-LLN which is limited to former commenters on FireDogLake. (LLN
stands for Late Late Night, which was a subforum for people to post music and discuss musical
artists; the LLN heading was used for the FB group out of, I believe, both nostalgia and the friendships
that many formed as FDL "pups".)
In addition, if you post an NC link on FB, it gets seen by many people who might not otherwise
become aware of the site.
Ah Jess I miss LLN and Suz an Tut and all the rest. But not enough to go Faceborg. Somethings
are lost some remain. I still have a phone which i use every so often.
Bob.
After a few years of FB econ sites, hashing things out with the usual suspects, things began
to increasingly change as the primaries got to the wire. Once solid commenters replete with knowlage
and experience began to mimic the very people and camps they once railed against.
It was on then when I took on these people for such actions that I started to get the FB treatment,
ending in privacy washing.
Disheveled Marsupial . especially when noting Hillary's history and bad side, sad to think
it might have been one of the old gang that put in a complaint to FB.
There is something bizarre about this whole scenario.
PropOrNot is asserting that the sites on the 'List", both right and left, were responsible
for the Clinton loss by spreading false Russian propaganda. This would make more sense, as a political
project, if Clinton had won. Asking the Trump DOJ and Trump's/Comey's FBI to investigate the asserted
causes of Trump's win is bizarre.
It only makes sense, IMHO, if this project was already in the works pre-election anticipating
a Clinton win, where it would have had the benefit of targeting both the right and the left and
continuing the drum beat for war. If that is the case, the losers appear to be too shell-shocked
or committed, financially or ideologically, to think through the implications of letting this
go forward.
I do like the idea of NC, and other left-wing sites, forming a coalition with right-wing sites
to take legal action. Ralph Nader's "Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle
the Corporate State" comes to mind.
Wasn't the reality of Russia intervention in Syria well underway by that time as well? Wasn't
the whole US Syrian ploy dependent on everybody selling the people a clear distinction between
evil Assad, evil ISIS, and good moderates (ahem al-quaeda)?
That narrative was clearly no longer believed even by the journalists writing it. Why? Sites
like this one and others. Why does it matter? Because aim was to get rid of Assad to cut Russia
out of Mideast, having failed to achieve that goal two years earlier in Ukraine. Cui bono?
Good points. Also, IIRC, internet governance is due to be turned over to a non-governmental
organization in the not too distant future. Might this not be a way of achieving the elimination
of net neutrality during a Democratic Administration that would not want to be seen as sticking
the knife in themselves?
In that scenario, it would look a lot like the present Administration is secretly working the
refs in the same way that they tried to push the TPP and its' associated ISDS provisions before
the whistle was blown on them.
This whole bizarre "fake news" meme along with the and the Russians are coming is getting widespread
media traction including Vanity Fair. It's getting repeated in Canadian media too.
Now PropOrNot not is not credited as the source but the more plausible sounding Foreign Policy
Research Institute and lots of references to the Washington Post's "reporting".
I think this is a deliberate campaign to discredit progressive and independent news sources.
God forbid that citizens should read a variety of sources and make up their own minds.
I have wondered for about a year now if someone is handing out anti-Russian story quotas
or maybe anti-Russian story cash, with a bonus for anything that goes viral. I'm not sure how
else you explain
stuff like this from a Gawker site that was mainly focused on minimum wage law and whether
the Tilted Kilt could legally fire you for being too fat.
This current listicle feels very much the same, except with less professionalism and more credulity.
Either someone is getting paid enough not to care how asinine this looks, or the inmates really
are running the media asylum.
Naked Capitalism is in great company: BAR, Counterpunch, Antiwar, Consortium News. I didn't
need to read these sites to come to my views though, all they did is to confirm what I had come
to believe all on my own: that Hillary is a corrupt warmonger, that the American government has
been captured by the moneyed elites, that the Democrat Party is a rat nest of neoliberal infestation.
And while I was naturally predisposed toward Russia by virtue of where I was born and by Bulgarian
history, my college career was marked by my support for all of the bad policies that brought us
the new Cold War with Russia: NATO expansion, the bombing of Serbia, the economic ruin of Russia,
the unipolar world order. I was young, stupid, and ambitious. Later on I simply settled into profound
indifference toward Russia and a general anti-war attitude brought about by my own service. It
wasn't until the hysterical MSM crapstorm of breathless smears about Sochi that I began to notice
the US policies against Russia. So for me, the most effective pro-Russia propaganda outlets proved
to be US MSM, WaPo and NYT being the most effective of all. Just one of life's little ironies.
So WaPo wants to sling mud and go on a witch hunt? I suggest that they indict themselves first
and foremost, for being a mindless disseminators of US government propaganda.
"a new 'Eurasian' empire stretching from Dublin to Vladisvostok"
Why Dublin? With a flick of the finger, they could have had the flyover terrain between there
and Shannon.
And why Vladivostock? You can go a lot farther East than that and still be in Russia.
For Pete's sake, why have they not included Sapporo and the rest of Japan. Aren't they vulnerable
too?
And the Aleutians; for that matter, why not the rest of Alaska too? After all, we only bought
it from them at a knock-down price. Anyone knows they got
a raw deal. Shouldn't they want that back too?
Shannon Airport would have been appropriate as during the Cold War it was Aeroflots main base
for flying on to Cuba. Its now only a short drive from Trumps Irish golf course.
Conflicted. On the one hand, as a long time reader of a diversity of listed websites (on the
lefty side mostly), this comes across as ham fisted and, frankly, bizarre. Not only the laughable
story itself, but that it has been picked up and reposted by a host of other rather mainstream
and 'liberal' surrogates.
It is *bizarre* because Russia today is nothing of what the boogeyman USSR was in times past:
an alternative political-economic arrangement to then industrial capitalism. Russia Today (wink,
wink) is as capitalist and as democratic as any of the other players on this particular stage
(plenty of the former, not so much of the latter). An economic competitor, sure, but no USSR.
So the anti-Russia/Putin propaganda just consistently reads hollow to anyone who spends any time
just reading run of the mill reporting of goings on in the world (reporting aside from propaganda
stories). In other words, if you are a relatively informed reader of diverse sources and traveler,
the anti-Russia stuff just comes across as contrived from the get go.
But then again, I got a chance to visit with some 1000s of academic colleagues at a national
convention recently. This is where the 'conflicted' point comes from. As Good Liberals, academics
dine daily on a strict NYT, WAPO, NPR diet, with the more 'edgy' types hanging at VOX and HuffPo.
And they BELIEVE everything their beloved media tells them through these sources, without reservation
(and with the requisite snark and smirk). The academy is nearly completely captured and now so
deeply immersed in its echo chamber that any information that might challenge its perception of
the world is immediately dismissed as nefarious propaganda (either paid for by the Koch bros,
or Putin). Of course, since the elite academy is overwhelmingly Ivy educated, their worldview
loops back to their Ivy educated friends at said media outlets. Creating a bubble that is increasingly
impenetrable to reason and critical analysis.
Lots of panic for the Washington regime. The clownish asshole loser that they carefully
groomed proved less repulsive than their chosen Fuehrer Clinton. Now they are distraught to see
that their enemy Russia sucks much less than the USA.
Russians get a much better deal than the US subject population. The Russian head of state has
approval ratings that US politicians scarcely dream of. Russia complies with the Paris Principles,
the gold standard for institutionalized human rights protection under international review. The
USA does not. Russia's incorruptible President keeps kleptocrats in check, while the US banana
republic installs them in high office. Russia complies with the rule of law: they refrain from
use or threat of force and rely on pacific dispute resolution, using proportional and necessary
force in compliance with UN Charter Chapter VII. The US shits on rule of law, interpreting human
rights instruments in bad faith and flouting jus cogens to maintain impunity for the gravest crimes.
In the precise terms of Responsibility to Protect, the US government does not even meet the minimal
test for state sovereignty: compliance with the International Bill of Human Rights, the Rome Statute,
and the UN Charter. Naturally the US is bleeding legitimacy and international standing, and Russia
is going from strength to strength. If Russia invaded, we would strew flowers and sweets.
The collapse of the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now it's time for the USA to collapse
and free America.
it boils down to Soros vs Putin. Anyone who is not with Soros is with Putin, according to Soros.
Soros cannot digest the death threat he was given by Putin, to stay away from Russia or else.
Since Soros was born in old communist europe, he seems to believe he has the right to regime change
there. And he has been very successful primarily because he is in bed with the CIA and the Russians
are just now waking up again.
So sorry! I am a foreign "propagandist" reader, commenter and contributer from Spain, and I
am just shoked to see this! How sad is this, it pretty much looks like McCarthysm again!!!!
Hi Naked Capitalism. I haven't been on this site for some time. But I felt it necessary to
comment due to an ad hominem attack from a commenter "James" regarding the show I produce at RT
called Boom Bust.
From my vantage point as producer at RT, I have been able to see the whole anti-Russia campaign
unfold in all its fury. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I want to restrict my comments to
the specific argument James makes. here:
"it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political
establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow,
and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that
way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do."
Since I produce the show that Steve Keen appears on, I am well-placed to give you a view on
this. James' comment is flat out false. What James writes is something he has fabricated in his
imagination connecting dots he believes should be connected based on no first hand evidence
whatsoever.
What actually happens on Boom Bust is this:
Since no one I work with at RT has a sophisticated background in economics, finance or financial
reporting, they give us a wide berth in putting together content for our show with nearly no top
down dictates at all. That means we as American journalists have a pretty much free hand to report
economic news intelligently and without bias. We invite libertarian, mainstream, non-mainstream,
leftist, Democratic commentators, Republican commentators you name it. As for guests, they are
not anti-American in any way shape or form. They are disproportionately non-mainstream.
We have no pro-Russian agenda. And that is in part because Russia is a bit player on the economic
stage, frankly. Except for sanctions, it has mostly been irrelevant on our show since inception.
Let me share a strange anecdote on that. We had a guest on our show about three years ago,
early in my tenure. We invited him on because he had smart things to say about the UK economy.
But he had also written some very negative things about Putin and Russia. Rather than whitewash
this we addressed it specifically in the interview and asked him an open-ended question about
Russia, so he could say his piece. I was ASTONISHED when he soft-pedaled his response and made
no forceful case as he had done literally days ago in print. This guy clearly self-censored
for what reason I don't know. But it is something that has stayed with me ever since.
The most important goal from a managerial perspective has been that our reporting is different
i.e. covers missing and important angles of the same storyline that are missing in the mainstream
media or that it covers storylines that are missing altogether.
Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on our show appears "because he lambasts the American
political establishment". This is false. He appears on our show because he is a credible economist
who provides a differentiated view on economics and insight that we believe will help our viewers
understand the global economy. If Paul Krugman had something to say of that nature and would appear
on our show, we would welcome him. In fact, I and other producers have reached out to him many
times to no avail, especially after we had Gerald Friedman give his take on the dust-up surrounding
Bernie Sanders' economic plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yna275KzuDQ
Look, I understand the scepticism about RT and its motives. It IS a state-funded news outlet
with news story angles that sometimes contrast sharply with western media. And it has not been
critical of the Russian government as far as I can tell. But you can't ascribe nefarious motives
to individual economists or reporters based on inaccurate or false third hand accounts. You are
just making things up, creating a false narrative based on circumstantial evidence. This is just
adding to the building peer pressure associated with what almost seems like an orchestrated campaign
to discredit non-mainstream sources of news.
You are in good company with that suspicion of a campaign to "sanitize" the public's sources
of information. If one were to consider the Corporate sector as the equivalent of a state, then
almost all news sources are liable to extra strong scrutiny. Going back to Bernays, the "shepherding"
of the news sources used by the majority of the population is crucial to maintaining control of
public perceptions. In that sense, the present struggle for control of the news narrative is understandable.
Keep up the good work.
Isn't that a compliment? I mean it does say "leading" (and I have to agree).
As for "left-wing", well NC does frequently feature articles by Bill Black & others associated
with the University of Mo. Kansas City; and UMKC has long been known for its lefty, socialist/commie
leanings I know because my 81 y.o. mother told me so (and I had a prof. there teaching "History
of Economic Thought" who came right out & claimed to be a Socialist horrors!)
Lambert foresaw that there would be a witch hunt after the election. He indicated that it would
come from the Democratic Party and the conserva-Dem establishment. And, ecco!, a witch hunt. So
what could possibly be the source?
I am noticing on my Facebook feeds that the ooshy liberals are in a feeding frenzy: They believe
that they are victims of some breakdown in information. The shocker was that the news being passed
around in DemPartyLandia was that the Democrats were on the verge of retaking both houses of Congress
and the presidency. Meanwhile, Water Cooler showed that the neither house of Congress was truly
in play and the presidential race was a dead heat. After the election, various lists began to
circulate. The one cited by Yves isn't the first. I saw one list that included The Onion, The
Daily Currant, and Duffel Blog. You mean Duffel Blog's story on U.S. soldiers trying en masse
to join the Canadian army isn't true?
Further, much of liberaldom is now deep into trying to flip the Electoral College or amend
the Constitution immediately, as well as the Trump as Fascist meme.
Yes, America, land of self-proclaimed bad-asses, turns out to be the realm of panic. And many
policies and stances are going to have to be suddenly revised: Ooshy liberals, who supported charter
schools for years, are suddenly shocked that DeVos of Amway is a charter-school addict. The disastrous
foreign-policy adventures of the last few years have to be offloaded very soon on Trump, so that
Obama can be thanked for being scandal-free.
And, evidently, the conspiracy is now so big that it can't be blamed solely on Al-Jazeera.
This means we need more outlets besides Google and Facebook; outlets impervious to witch hunts
maybe offshore enterprises, after all that's the trend. The more the merrier for manufacturing
dissent in a good sense. What Russia does cannot harm us but it is always good to hear their
take; and China is interesting as well. We get such gobbledegook from MSM we would never understand
a single issue without alternative news. It's a little late for them to be all hysterical about
losing their grip they've been annoying us and boring us to death for 5 decades; and selling
us down the river. I'm amazed they have a following at all.
The military industrial complex and all the elites are behind all this massive propaganda stuff
and fake news. They want war and nothing is going to stand in their way not the democrats, not
the republicans, no one. HRC knew this hence her "paranoia" about Russia. It's crazy. I hope
Trump has the balls to stand up against them. Thanks NC for being here --
With the Washington Post at least, there is a pretty handy avenue of response. Namely that
its CEO Jeff Bezos, who clearly approves of the editorial policy, is also owner of Amazon.com
If you don't approve of Mr. Bezos using his media platform to revive McCarthyism and Yellow Journalism,
keep that in mind when doing your holiday shopping, and when you see that item you were thinking
of buying on amazon, take a moment to see about buying it elsewhere, even if it costs a bit more
to do so. If Mr. Bezos want to use the Washington Post to promote censorship of media control,
make him pay for it in a drop in Amazon's stock price.
"Information globalism is a free flow of information across the world irrespective of race,
source geography. Its up to a competent reader being selective- choosing what sort of information
they want consuming. Its the bases of choice, a basic human right."
The Clinton campaign announced today they'll be joining the recount effort. Greens start a
recount effort, Friday WaPo prints vile rumors, Saturday Clinton campaign announces it is joining
the Wisc recount effort. This is banana republic stuff.
One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely
respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time
Magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired Magazine as a crucial
site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS'
Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington
Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.
From the propornot website (deliberately not linking it) the YYY thing is really creepy.
The YYYcampaignYYY is an effort to crowdsource identifying Russian propaganda outlets and
sympathizers. To participate, when you see a social-media account, commenter, or outlet echoing
Russian propaganda themes, highlight it with YYYs accordingly!
Reminds me of the (((name of jewish person))) thing that popped up very briefly in the right
wing fever swamp only to be instantly proudly self-added by a ton of jewish liberals.
I have come to the conclusion, based on personal observation, that anyone who includes the
words "our leaders" in their narrative is not to be trusted. Granted, it's a personal thing, as
I have been advocating whenever possible that we should under no circumstances apply that label
to our elected officials but should instead always use their proper designation: "public servants."
Anyone want to wager a thorough check of the MSM for the last fifty years or more would eventually
uncover the first one of their ilk to refer to elected officials as "our leaders"? To then be
followed by all of the others?
Because how better to persuade the voting public that they should just fill in the bubble or
push the button without asking a lot of silly questions about issues than by subtly brainwashing
them with the implication the people they're voting for are better equipped to deal with the important
stuff? Because "our leaders" are clearly better qualified to make the decisions than we are.
Interesting. Google's n-gram viewer shows that "our leaders" is much more prevalent
in books during and after wartime, peaking in 1942-44, with a somewhat steady rise between
just before WW1 and the end of WW2 (upon which each war is superimposed), and an odd reversal
upward around 1996 whose incline isn't much deflected by 9/11, and which levels off around 2005.
It's almost like looking at the Third Way made flesh.
My ex husband told me that back in the 70s when he was applying for a government job, he had
to undergo an extensive FBI check. The fibbies found out he had a subscription to "Soviet Life"
(a magazine about cultural, economic stuff in the USSR). As a result, his neighbors, family, past
co-workers were all interviewed to see if he was a "subversive." The Russophobia has a long history.
I agree with many commenters that Pravda's ProPorNet's listing is heading somewhere scary.
The MSM got the message that they have no credibility anymore, and they're in a panic, as are
the neocons/neolibs. I think after the US backed Ukrainian coup failed to nudge Russia into a
war, this "Russian aggression" meme started in earnest. Now that the election is over and the
"favored one" lost, it is quite telling to me that the panicked establishment isn't going to go
quietly. They were planning on having WWIII, and are furious now.
I'm too young to remember McCarthyism, but this stuff is frightening.
[..]Also included are popular libertarian hubs such as Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com and the Ron
Paul Institute, along with the hugely influential right-wing website the Drudge Report and the
publishing site WikiLeaks.
[..]One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely
respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time Magazine
as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired Magazine as a crucial site to
follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS' Bill Moyers
Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has
now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.[..]
Key line from Greenwald IMO: "The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who
want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that
the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the
objective truth which reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of
the Cold War."
me: The only way the mainstream media can get its power back is by killing or at least crippling
the internet.
A bunch of people in the U.S. got fed up, and now it means that a lot of people who were used
to only having contact with other people like themselves and hanging out at fancy parties are
being told they need to start interacting with the general public or get a different job, and
they're not happy about it.
Just last week I made my first ever reader contribution to NCnow I wish I had waited a few
days so my donation could be interpreted as an "FU" to ProporNot. :)
This Washington Post piece is so insidious as to make my blood run cold. We've seen
in "education reform" how the Gates Foundation and Walton Foundation would place un-sourced propaganda
in articles by friendly reporters in the WaPost and the NYTimes and then reference
the news outlets as proving their propaganda to be "fact."
As some know, I am a professional conspiracy theorist, having served as a local-level
criminal prosecutor for over 32 years. I see a grave threat to the First Amendment when
an anonymous source suspected to have ties to the military-industrial complex calls for the government
to investigate news sources for espionage.
I also find it interesting that The Intercept didn't make the list, despite the presence
of Glenn Greenwald. Given Pierre Omidyar's closeness to the current administration (was FirstLook
created to take Greenwald and Taibbi out of circulation during the 2012 election?), is there some
sort of "tell" here about where this attack on Free Speech is coming from?
Those on this blacklist should pool resources to pursue retraction, repudiation, and an admission
by the Post editorial board that Timberg's outrageously un-sourced "reporting" is libelous
and was published with an at best reckless and at worst intentional disregard for the truth.
Probably true, though also worth noting that (as has been observed frequently here), the Intercept's
regular reporting on Ukraine and Syria was often little better than mainstream outlets.
What is even more alarming, this seems to be coordinated with Jane Harmon's recent advocacy
of a FISA drone court which also targets "enemy" web sites. Is this a prelude to shutting down
dissenting web sites based on their status as foreign agents of our arch enemy "Russia" which
the European Parliament has equated with Daesh. There is a sense of impending revolution world
wide, is this the first step to preempt such? Is martial law the next step? There seemed to be
a lot of projection involved when the neo-libs accused Trump of fascism and not accepting election
results. Who is now not accepting election results and who are the real fascists calling for the
shutting down of news outlets?
Yet another reason why political establishment got what it deserved this election cycle. They
still think that a bit of propaganda denied them a victory and there is nothing wrong with their
policies
WaPo is now too vile to read.
McClatchy is still a fairly good news source. And, oh, look at this: Clinton campaign will join
recount effort in Wisconsin. Not surprising.
Jill Stein has embarrassed herself with this effort. I gave money to her until she made
her final vp choice Baraka called Bernie a white supremacist! I did vote for her and now feel
it really was a wasted vote. 1% in the national totals. Ok. Being a useful idiot for the Clintons
no way.
Ah yes, one more chance to steal the election. Syria must fall and be partitioned. Russia must
be driven from the Ukraine, the internet must be cleansed of dissent. Patent and Copyright monopolies
must be imposed on the world. This election took TPTB by surprise, they are surprised no longer.
Trump does not want to be President, he's scared to death. The consensus is that the results will
not change. Don't be so sure. There may yet be a coronation and then the shit will hit the proverbial
fan. Apparently it was not enough for TPTB to control both parties, they also control the minor
parties. Et tu Jill Stein!
Hillary and her handlers had the choice to lose to Bernie or to Trump. They chose Trump.
(OK, maybe not consciously.)
Now, they are are NOT happy with the result but please notice that Bernie is looking better,
has more news coverage, even appearing on The View, for crying out loud! Yes veal pen, "outreach",
whatever. Doesn't matter what they Think They are crafting.
If they keep up the Rooskie angle they will be amazed how good Bernie starts to look.
A little FB censorship. Ditto! Shut down some international protests. (In North Dakota) Bingo!
Drive people into the street! Whoooee!
They, DNC, Bezos et al, will pine for him before this is all over. Because he is the symbol
for what could have happened if they had followed the law and had gone peacefully.
They can't see it yet.
BTW, RT has a 30 minute segment with Chris Hedges at Standing Rock circulating now.
Seems legit to me. Decide for yourself.
Yves stand up and take a bow. You have been noticed by the filth. One of the many reassuring
signs to come from the corridors of power lately. Is it possible change really is coming?
I have just learned of a group in the European Parliament led by a Polish MEP and member of
the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformers in Europe that is likewise attempting to create a
fear of "fake news" from those sites that don't follow the MSM Editors' example of restraint in
publication.
It has this week received a huge injection of public money to extend its work. It seems that
North America and Europe are in lockstep on the need to keep the people ignorant.
If this site is seriously trying to help snowflakes create information-safe-places, then it
needs to protect them from my blog, too.
Fair is fair. I deserve recognition.
I also think Ilargi @ The Automatic Earth is being snubbed through their non-inclusion of that
site.
Everybody should email them and demand that all worthy blogs get included in their precious list.
When the rot is complete and the edifice tumbles? Or when TINA wins, and the voices go silent?
My bet is on the later. Collectively, the money got all 4 aces (and a few more hidden up their
sleaves and a few more hidden in their boots, etc no end of aces.)
Then the silence reigns and TINA is happy. Despair is walled offed into its own echo chamber
and silence is taken for acquiescence and indifference.
Until it doesn't.
Human history just keeps playing the same music. Mind you, big nature might be adding a new
wrinkle to march-of-death tune. Interesting times, very interesting.
Charles Hugh-Smith's response to the "list": "The Washington Post: Useful-Idiot Shills for
a Failed, Frantic Status Quo That Has Lost Control of the Narrative"
This unadmitted ignorance was previously displayed for those with eyes to see it in the Libya debacle,
perhaps not coincidentally Clinton's pet war. Cast by the Obama White House as a surgical display
of "smart power" that would defend human rights and foster democracy in the Muslim world, the 2011
Libyan intervention did precisely the opposite. There is
credible evidence that the U.S.-led NATO campaign prolonged and exacerbated the humanitarian
crisis, and far from creating a flourishing democracy, the ouster of strongman Muammar Qaddafi led
to a power vacuum into which ISIS and other rival unsavories surged.
The 2011 intervention and the follow-up escalation in which we are presently entangled were both
fundamentally informed by "the underlying belief that military force will produce stability and that
the U.S. can reasonably predict the result of such a campaign," as Christopher Preble has argued
in a must-read Libya analysis
at Politico . Both have proven resoundingly wrong.
Before Libya, Washington espoused the same false certainty in advance of intervention and nation-building
Iraq and Afghanistan. The rhetoric around the former was particularly telling: we would find nuclear
weapons and "be greeted as liberators,"
said Vice President
Dick Cheney. The whole thing would take five months or less,
said Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld. It would be a
"cakewalk." As months dragged into years of nation-building stagnation, the ignored truth became
increasingly evident: the United States cannot reshape entire countries without obscene risk and
investment, and even when those costly commitments are made, success cannot be predicted with certainty.
Nearly 14 years later, with Iraq demonstrably more violent and less stable than it was before
U.S. intervention, wisdom demands we reject Washington's recycled snake oil.
Recent polls (let alone the anti-elite backlash Trump's
win represents ) suggest Americans are ready to do precisely that. But a lack of public enthusiasm
has never stopped Washington from hawking its fraudulent wares-this time in the form of yet-again
unfounded certainty that escalating American intervention in Syria is a sure-fire solution to that
beleaguered nation's woes.
We must not let ourselves be fooled. Rather, we "should understand that we don't need to overthrow
distant governments and roll the dice on what comes after in order to keep America safe," as Preble,
reflecting on Libya,
contends . "On the contrary, our track record over the last quarter-century shows that such interventions
often have the opposite effect."
And as for the political establishment, let Trump's triumph be a constant reminder of the necessity
of expecting the unexpected and proceeding with due (indeed, much overdue) prudence and restraint
abroad. If Washington so grossly misunderstood the direction of its own heartland-without the muddling,
as in foreign policy, of massive geographic and cultural differences-how naοve it is to believe that
our government can successfully play armed puppet-master over an entire region of the world?
Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She is a weekend editor at The Week
and a columnist at Rare , and her writing has also appeared at Time , Politico
, Relevant , The Hill , and other outlets.
That "Navy ship that broke down in the Panama Canal" - it cost $4.4 *billion* dollars. And
there is a second one just finishing construction with a third coming in at the basement bargain
price of $3.7B:
The Zumwalt cost more than $4.4bn and was commissioned in October in Maryland. It also suffered
a leak in its propulsion system before it was commissioned. The leak required the ship to remain
at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia longer than expected for repairs.
The ship is part of the first new class of warship built at Bath Iron Works in more than
25 years.
The second Zumwalt-class destroyer, which also cost more than $4.4bn, was christened in
a June ceremony during which US Rep Bruce Poliquin called it an "extraordinary machine
of peace and security". The third ship is expected to cost a bit less than $3.7bn.
Well, I understand that these are magnificent "machines of peace and security" but it seems
rather a shame that some of that money couldn't be spent on delivering, say, clean water to residents
of Flint and elsewhere.
US Dems and Republicans both:
Money for ENDLESS WAR - no problem!
Money for housing, health, education, environment - how the hell can we find money for that?
River
Given that the ammo is one million a shell, $3.7 billion is a bargain of sorts.
It isn't a shame that money couldn't be used elsewhere. It's a God Damn outrage.
PlutoniumKun
Well, not quite a million, but $800,000 a shell according to Stars and Stripes magazine. And each
ship is supposed to carry 600 of them. The Zumwelt is basically a very expensive mobile artillery
ship, with no clear military purpose. The Navy have pretty much confirmed this by cancelling the
system (there were originally to be 38 of them). The worst thing is that despite it having no clear
purpose and costing vast sums of money, nobody seems willing to call anyone to account for having
blown billions on an entirely worthless defence system.
"... Did the United States not know that intervening in "the lands of Islam" would act as a catalyst for Jihad? Was it
by chance that the United States intervened only in secular states, turning them into manholes of religious extremism? Is
it a coincidence that these interventions were and are often supported by regimes that sponsor political Islam? Conspiracy
theory, you say? No, these are historical facts. ..."
"... The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their
punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of
the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way
to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3) ..."
"... What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit
in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of
the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake
of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy
of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of
state. (5) ..."
"... At the moment of this writing, any speculation as to the policy choices of Trump's foreign policy is premature.
..."
"... Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush was a conservative Republican non-interventionist. He advocated "America First,"
called for a more subdued foreign policy and adopted Colin Powell's realism "to attend without stress" (7) with regard to
the Near and Middle East. But his policy shifted to become the most aggressive and most brutal in the history of the United
States. Many international observers argue that this shift came as a response to the September 11 attacks, but they fail
to note that the aggressive germs already existed within Bush's cabinet and advisers: the neo-conservatives occupied key
functions in his administration. ..."
"... Up until now, Trump's links with the neo-cons remain unclear. The best-known neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol,
and Robert Kagan, appear to have lost their bet by supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But others, less prominent or
influential, seem to have won it by supporting Trump: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and James Woolsey, his adviser and one
of the architects of the wars in the Middle East. ..."
"... it is more realistic to suppose that as long as the United States has interests in the countries of the South and
the Near and Middle East, so long it will not hesitate to intervene. ..."
"... In this context, Trump's defeat and Clinton's accession are not sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism
-- the end of an era and the beginning of another. ..."
"... (Translated from the French by Luciana Bohne) ..."
If the discourse of humanitarianism seduced the North, it has not been so in the South, even less in the Near and Middle
East, which no longer believe in it. The patent humanitarian disasters in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have disillusioned
them.
It is in this sense that Trump's victory is felt as a release, a hope for change, and a rupture from the policy of Clinton,
Bush, and Obama. This policy, in the name of edifying nations ("nation building"), has destroyed some of the oldest nations
and civilizations on earth; in the name of delivering well-being, it has delivered misery; in the name of liberal values,
it has galvanized religious zeal; in the name of democracy and human rights, it has installed autocracies and Sharia law.
Who is to blame?
Did the United States not know that intervening in "the lands of Islam" would act as a catalyst for Jihad? Was it
by chance that the United States intervened only in secular states, turning them into manholes of religious extremism?
Is it a coincidence that these interventions were and are often supported by regimes that sponsor political Islam? Conspiracy
theory, you say? No, these are historical facts.
Can the United States not learn from history, or does it just doom itself to repeat it? Does it not pose itself the
question of how al-Qaeda and Daesh originated? How did they organize themselves? Who trained them? What is their mobilizing
discourse? (1) Why is the US their target? None of this seems to matter to the US: all it cares about is
projecting its own idealism. (2)
The death of thousands of people in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya or Syria, has it contributed to the well being of these
peoples? Or does the United States perhaps respond to this question in the manner of Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's
Secretary of State, who regretted the death of five-hundred-thousand Iraqi children, deprived of medications by the American
embargo, to conclude with the infamous sentence, "[But] it was worth it "?
Was it worth it that people came to perceive humanitarian intervention as the new crusades? Was it worth it that they
now perceive democracy as a pagan, pre-Islamic model, abjured by their belief? Was it worth it that they now perceive modernity
as deviating believers from the "true" path? Was it worth that they now perceive human rights as human standards as contrary
to the divine will? Was it worth it that people now perceive secularism as atheism whose defenders are punishable by beheading?
Have universal values become a problem rather than a solution? What then to think of making war in their name? Has humanitarian
intervention become punishment rather than help?
The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their
punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions
of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are
a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3)
What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit
in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of
the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake
of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign
policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary
of state. (5)
The end of interventionism?
But are Clinton's defeat and Trump's accession to power sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism?
Donald Trump is a nationalist, whose rise has been the result of a coalition of anti-interventionists within the Republican
Party. They professe a foreign policy that Trump has summarized in these words: "We will use military force only in cases
of vital necessity to the national security of the United States. We will put an end to attempts of imposing democracy
and overthrowing regimes abroad, as well as involving ourselves in situations in which we have no right to intervene."
(6)
But drawing conclusions about the foreign policy of the United States from unofficial statements seems simplistic.
At the moment of this writing, any speculation as to the policy choices of Trump's foreign policy is premature.
One can't predict his policy with regard to the Near and Middle East, since he has not yet even formed his cabinet.
Moreover, presidents in office can change their tune in the course of their tenure. The case of George W. Bush provides
an excellent example.
Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush was a conservative Republican non-interventionist. He advocated "America First,"
called for a more subdued foreign policy and adopted Colin Powell's realism "to attend without stress" (7) with regard
to the Near and Middle East. But his policy shifted to become the most aggressive and most brutal in the history of the
United States. Many international observers argue that this shift came as a response to the September 11 attacks, but they
fail to note that the aggressive germs already existed within Bush's cabinet and advisers: the neo-conservatives occupied
key functions in his administration. (8)
Up until now, Trump's links with the neo-cons remain unclear. The best-known neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol,
and Robert Kagan, appear to have lost their bet by supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But others, less prominent or
influential, seem to have won it by supporting Trump: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and James Woolsey, his adviser and
one of the architects of the wars in the Middle East.
These indices show that nothing seems to have been gained by the South, still less by the Near and Middle East. There
appears to be no guarantee that the situation will improve.
The non-interventionism promised by Trump may not necessarily equate to a policy of isolationism. A non-interventionist
policy does not automatically mean that the United States will stop protecting their interests abroad, strategic or otherwise.
Rather, it could mean that the United States will not intervene abroad except to defend their own interests,
unilaterally -- and perhaps even more aggressively. Such a potential is implied in Trump's promise to increase
the budget for the army and the military-industrial complex. Thus, it is more realistic to suppose that as long as
the United States has interests in the countries of the South and the Near and Middle East, so long it will not hesitate
to intervene.
In this context, Trump's defeat and Clinton's accession are not sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism
-- the end of an era and the beginning of another. The political reality is too complex to be reduced to statements
by a presidential candidate campaigning for election, by an elected president, or even by a president in the course of
performing his office.
No one knows what the future will bring.
Marwen Bouassida is a researcher in international law at North African-European relations, University of Carthage,
Tunisia. He regularly contributes to the online magazine Kapitalis.
"... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
"... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naοve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
"... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
"... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
"... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
"... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
"... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
"... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump]
plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly
with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence
in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony,
he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is
going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.
And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow
through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So
far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House
chief strategist.
Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until
toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee.
If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so
tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment,
thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus
does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out
at worst.
On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which
is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the
globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon
is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naοve about the New World
Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the
role that Zionism plays in it.
To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and
especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he
is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into
hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is
a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And
John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist,
and establishment hack.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment
of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in
a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post
in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential
administration.
Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon.
And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure).
If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration,
I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot
drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly
what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.
Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on
repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't
even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But
for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of
what we need to know.
What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy
and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we
do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever
on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.
There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic
ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian,
pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound
asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give
the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.
The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he
ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully
that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political
hibernation now that Trump is elected.
I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly,
if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.
"... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
"... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naοve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
"... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
"... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
"... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
"... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
"... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
"... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump]
plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly
with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence
in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony,
he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is
going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.
And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow
through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So
far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House
chief strategist.
Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until
toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee.
If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so
tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment,
thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus
does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out
at worst.
On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which
is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the
globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon
is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naοve about the New World
Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the
role that Zionism plays in it.
To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and
especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he
is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into
hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is
a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And
John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist,
and establishment hack.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment
of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in
a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post
in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential
administration.
Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon.
And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure).
If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration,
I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot
drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly
what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.
Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on
repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't
even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But
for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of
what we need to know.
What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy
and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we
do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever
on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.
There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic
ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian,
pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound
asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give
the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.
The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he
ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully
that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political
hibernation now that Trump is elected.
I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly,
if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.
Michael Flynn, expected to advise Donald Trump on counterproductive killing operations misleading
labeled "national security," is generally depicted as a lawless
torturer and assassin. But, whether for partisan reasons or otherwise, he's a lawless torturer
and assassin who has blurted out some truths he shouldn't be allowed to forget.
"Lt. Gen. Flynn, who since leaving the DIA has become an outspoken critic of the Obama administration,
charges that the White House relies heavily on drone strikes for reasons of expediency, rather
than effectiveness. 'We've tended to say, drop another bomb via a drone and put out a headline
that "we killed Abu Bag of Doughnuts" and it makes us all feel good for 24 hours,' Flynn said.
'And you know what? It doesn't matter. It just made them a martyr, it just created a new reason
to fight us even harder.'"
"When you drop a bomb from a drone you are going to cause more damage than you are going to
cause good. The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just fuels the conflict."
Will Flynn then advise Trump to cease dropping bombs from drones? Or will he go ahead and advise
drone murders, knowing full well that this is counterproductive from the point of view of anyone
other than war profiteers?
From the same report:
"Asked . . . if drone strikes tend to create more terrorists than they kill, Flynn . . . replied:
'I don't disagree with that,' adding: 'I think as an overarching strategy, it is a failed strategy.'"
So Trump's almost inevitable string of drone murders will be conducted under the guidance of a
man who knows they produce terrorism rather than reducing it, that they endanger the United States
rather than protecting it. In that assessment, he agrees with the vast majority of Americans who
believe that the wars of the past
15 years have made the United States less safe, which is the view of numerous other
experts as well.
Flynn, too, expanded his comments from drones to the wars as a whole:
"What we have is this continued investment in conflict. The more weapons we give, the more
bombs we drop, that just fuels the conflict. Some of that has to be done but I am looking for
the other solutions."
Flynn also, like Trump, accurately cites the criminal 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as critical to
the creation of ISIS:
"Commenting on the rise of ISIL in Iraq, Flynn acknowledged the role played by the US invasion
and occupation of Iraq. 'We definitely put fuel on a fire,' he told Hasan. 'Absolutely there
is no doubt, history will not be kind to the decisions that were made certainly in 2003. Going
into Iraq, definitely it was a strategic mistake."
So there will be no advice to make similar strategic mistakes that are highly profitable to the
weapons industry?
Flynn, despite perhaps being a leading advocate of lawless imprisonment and torture, also admits
to the counterproductive nature of those crimes:
"The former lieutenant general denied any involvement in the litany of abuses carried out by
JSOC interrogators at Camp Nama in Iraq, as revealed by the
New York Times and
Human Rights Watch, but admitted the US prison system in Iraq in the post-war period 'absolutely'
helped radicalise Iraqis who later joined Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its successor organisation,
ISIL."
Recently the International Criminal Court teased the world with the news that it might possible
consider indicting US and other war criminals for their actions in Afghanistan. One might expect
all-out resistance to such a proposal from Trump and his gang of hyper-nationalist war mongers, except
that . . .
"Flynn also called for greater accountability for US soldiers involved in abuses against Iraqi
detainees: 'You know I hope that as more and more information comes out that people are held accountable
History is not going to look kind on those actions and we will be held, we should be held, accountable
for many, many years to come.'"
Let's not let Flynn forget any of these words. On Syria he has blurted out some similar facts
to those Trump has also articulated:
"Publicly commenting for the first time on a previously-classified August 2012
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo,
which had predicted 'the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality
in Eastern Syria ( ) this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want' and confirmed
that 'the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and [Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving
the insurgency in Syria,' the former DIA chief told Head to Head that 'the [Obama] Administration'
didn't 'listen' to these warnings issued by his agency's analysts. 'I don't know if they turned
a blind eye,' he said. 'I think it was a decision, I think it was a willful decision.'"
Let that sink in. Flynn is taking credit for having predicted that backing fighters in Syria could
lead to something like ISIS. And he's suggesting that Obama received this information and chose to
ignore it.
Now, here's a question: What impact will "bombing the hell" out of people have? What good will
"killing their families" do? Spreading nukes around? "Stealing their oil"? Making lists of and banning
Muslims? Is it Flynn's turn to willfully ignore key facts and common sense in order to "advise" against
his better judgment a new president who prefers to be advised to do what he was going to do anyway?
Or can Flynn be convinced to apply lessons learned at huge human cost to similar situations going
forward even with a president of a different party, race, and IQ?
"... The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals. ..."
"... Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. ..."
"... Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe." ..."
"... To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues. ..."
"... Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. ..."
"... This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review." ..."
"... I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers. ..."
"... Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad." ..."
In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place
that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans
are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly
unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.
The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees
to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances,
but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have
been even more disastrous.
The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian
administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz,
Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard
B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's
undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was
chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader
of postwar Iraq.
On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat
who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience
of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the
Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders
that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi
government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members
were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their
jobs, taking their weapons with them.
The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington
Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are
former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head
of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the
Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and
the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling
extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported
in 2007:
The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded
as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made
it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.
This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former
Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to
do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs."
Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges
the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of
signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."
Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies,
they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What is
more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted. In November
2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would
have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide
security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings, one on March 10 and
another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification policy and
a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi military
to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush later told
biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't happen."
So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In 2007,
Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all the researchers
look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be in the thick of it
and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written, it is time to
establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.
The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz,
and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served.
Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had
thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and
Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for
what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this
episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit
their own goals.
♦♦♦
At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction
and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer.
The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides
with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy
Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored
a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year earlier.
For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June 2002 we
conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts of means
to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and that if they
did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's leadership,
"Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild
the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan."
In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss
keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however, showed
up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.
In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling
his wife that:
I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by
Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility'
Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level
diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.
Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of
the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in
what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him.
At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing
postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany.
Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed,
"What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled
the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We
had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes
a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification
was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists
had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."
Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,
The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented
me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that
he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to
hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week
later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the
Pentagon.
In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own
on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new
CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."
The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which
he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic
statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's
about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that
forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the
people we're bringing on."
Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any
action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed,
another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the
period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner
in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when
challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War,
Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted
Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."
What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe.
He writes in his memoir:
To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for
defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated
attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and
arms control issues.
In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained
good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once
again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November
2003 the Washington Post reported:
The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former
undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in
the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a
continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at
the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe
said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'
Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's
statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of
Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army;
in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March
spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what
happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe
and Bremer:
Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely
new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and
badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back
might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.
Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible
effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers
had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going,
they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview,
"We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve
all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure,
his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to
the Coalition Provisional Authority."
Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the
army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful
consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's
notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are
hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist
Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial
Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home,
Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them
back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned,
the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive."
This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the
policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.
♦♦♦
Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative
policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably,
Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and
the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration
planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration
('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically
and economically')."
Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a punching
bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand
its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic,
given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September
4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters
supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded,
"the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred
only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover,
the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant
reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed."
Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian
and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It
was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."
Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the
policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making
process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment
about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't
know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's
"Frontline,"
What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this,
do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington
coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from
my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end,
with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And
how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was
from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.
It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences,
he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know
how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that
the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the
decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in
the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.
This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March
and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding
policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent
lack of interagency review."
The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo
Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke
with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld,
and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said, "They
turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained, "The
decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the
differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."
Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account
rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:
I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding
the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime
exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected,
including mid-level party members like teachers.
In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance," musing
that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism,
he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing
what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure
in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important,
it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told
Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost
no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the
regime in Baghdad."
This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime
in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in the
same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby,
Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:
Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary,
unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets, and
to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals that
the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.
But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when
one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives'
sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy
was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's
work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people in
mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not spend
money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the administration
makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.
♦♦♦
Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors takes
policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president. But the
case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has a unique
importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for them.
Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other party's
fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's 2007 "surge"
of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after President Obama
fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the Democratic counterpart
to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than Bushes are susceptible to
this personnel problem.
Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction
in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically with
the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against al-Qaeda
and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what the surge did
or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil war that raged
there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification and disbanding
policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces that Bremer,
Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.
When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever
you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns
official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no one
has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about the Islamic
State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making in the Iraq
War.
This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under
any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told
Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active,
ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies,"
it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion. But for those who
have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible to undermine a president,
then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally stand in judgment. But now
that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.
John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.
"In a sense it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate
to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community
or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as
significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly
assigned responsibilities not doing their job."
1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not
really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to
their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her
fault directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments.
That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is
a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.
2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous
admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the
history of that day.
The failure rests:
a. the previous admin
b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
the FBI
c. CIA
d the airlines
Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face.
We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would
be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and
control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players
were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major
player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed
expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton directly.
That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility
with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out
by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
" it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack
the policy process "
Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing
brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the
top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.
Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet
the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by
competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you
are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.
But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different,
despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.
Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would
have prevented problems.
This is problematic.
The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the
fodder.
A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the
inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police
forces.
Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down
the road.
I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this
article Myth Number 2.
In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place
that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans
are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration
unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.
The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level
appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar
instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences
have been even more disastrous.
The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first
civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy;
Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to
Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had
been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor;
Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer
replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.
On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career
diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal
experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take
charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer
issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified"
the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath
party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers
lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.
The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The
Washington Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic
State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed
to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant
colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification
and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to
fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York
Times reported in 2007:
The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely
regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers
and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.
This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former
Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men
to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs."
Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges
the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead
of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."
Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies,
they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What
is more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted.
In November 2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved
a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept
them available to provide security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings,
one on March 10 and another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification
policy and a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi
military to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush
later told biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't
happen."
So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In
2007, Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all
the researchers look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be
in the thick of it and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written,
it is time to establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.
The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz,
and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they
served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi,
who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by
Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility
for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his
own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American
presidency to suit their own goals.
♦♦♦
At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction
and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer.
The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides
with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy
Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored
a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year
earlier. For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June
2002 we conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts
of means to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and
that if they did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's
leadership, "Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best
way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad
with his plan."
In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss
keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however,
showed up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.
In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling
his wife that:
I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and
by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration
in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked
expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills
and experience for that position.
Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts
of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing
in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected
him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each
comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington
Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's,
which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security
services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his
part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case
for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen
years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."
Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,
The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented
me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that
he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith
to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers.
A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted
by the Pentagon.
In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his
own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As
the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."
The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which
he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic
statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's
about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that
forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of
the people we're bringing on."
Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any
action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed,
another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the
period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay
Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on
his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial:
Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner
confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."
What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe.
He writes in his memoir:
To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser
for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated
attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic
and arms control issues.
In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has
maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark
that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough,
in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:
The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe,
a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed
strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect
to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer,
Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed
up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was
discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do
this.'
Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12,
Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the
request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the
Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting
in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But
this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith
attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:
Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely
new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and
badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army
back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.
Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible
effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers
had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going,
they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview,
"We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve
all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party
structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned
over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."
Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding
the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion
of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed,"
Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong
impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps
Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation
for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite
the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their
garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran
adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing
the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were
communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the
NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.
♦♦♦
Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative
policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably,
Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame:
to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the
Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was
in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."
Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a
punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't
understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration
is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.)
On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper
exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But
the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew
much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter
and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with
Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American
military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed,
"the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government."
And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."
Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of
the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making
process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment
about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I
don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe
told PBS's "Frontline,"
What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this,
do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington
coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job
from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington
end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output.
And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel
was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.
It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences,
he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't
know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post
that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other
words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year,
and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.
This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in
March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the
disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including
the apparent lack of interagency review."
The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo
Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke
with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld,
and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said,
"They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained,
"The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion,
and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president
responsible."
Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account
rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:
I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding
the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime
exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected,
including mid-level party members like teachers.
In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance,"
musing that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism,
he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing
what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure
in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important,
it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told
Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had
almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall
of the regime in Baghdad."
This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime
in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in
the same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith,
Libby, Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:
Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary,
unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets,
and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals
that the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.
But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when
one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives'
sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy
was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's
work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people
in mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not
spend money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the
administration makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.
♦♦♦
Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors
takes policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president.
But the case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has
a unique importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for
them.
Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other
party's fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's
2007 "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after
President Obama fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the
Democratic counterpart to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than
Bushes are susceptible to this personnel problem.
Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction
in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically
with the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against
al-Qaeda and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what
the surge did or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil
war that raged there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification
and disbanding policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces
that Bremer, Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.
When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever
you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns
official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no
one has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about
the Islamic State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making
in the Iraq War.
This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under
any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told
Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated,
active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of
his policies," it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion.
But for those who have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible
to undermine a president, then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally
stand in judgment. But now that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.
John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.
"In a sense it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate
to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community
or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as
significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly
assigned responsibilities not doing their job."
1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not
really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to
their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her
fault directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments.
That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is
a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.
2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous
admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the
history of that day.
The failure rests:
a. the previous admin
b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
the FBI
c. CIA
d the airlines
Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face.
We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would
be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and
control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players
were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major
player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed
expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton directly.
That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility
with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out
by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
" it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack
the policy process "
Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing
brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the
top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.
Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet
the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by
competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you
are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.
But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different,
despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.
Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would
have prevented problems.
This is problematic.
The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the
fodder.
A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the
inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police
forces.
Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down
the road.
I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this
article Myth Number 2.
Bush was 100% at fault. He chose to appoint Rumsfeld and Cheney as top members of his administration.
These were strong-willed men who had both served his father well. The problem was Bush Jr. was
not his father. The old man was older and more experienced than either of his underlings AND he
was the President. As a result these strong personalities were truly subordinate to Bush Sr. Both
men were older and vastly more experienced than the son, and he was no match for them.
Hence the Iraq policy was not a coherent policy set by the office of the POTUS but many strategies,
often conflicting, because POTUS was absent. Some (Garner) were working to replace Saddam with
someone better, leaving the government in place, to facilitate a quick exit. Others (Bremer) thought
they were working to establish a capitalist democracy in the Middle East. And some I suppose some
(Kay) thought the war had been about WMDs.
Wah wah, Bush was a victim. Yeepers. My takeaway: the minions, advisors, apparatchik melt away,
and Bush- as those before him, and inevitably those to follow somehow are also given a free
pass through plausible deniability. No man is an island, and one only need look at an aerial photo
of DC to realize that there are a LOT of moving parts, many folks with impact, and a ton money
floating around to lubricate the whole deal. Little Versailles on the Potomac , with lethal global
consequences.
It is crucially important that we identify, fire, and shame those whose bad faith, corruption,
and/or incompetence did so much to wreck the Middle East and damage America.
Articles like this are a step in that direction. Please publish more of them.
I knew the moment that Bush chose Cheney as his vp back in 00 that we were going to go to war
and Bush's humble foreign policy was going to be flushed down the toilet.
The heading of "The Deciders" claims that "The disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were
not President Bush's."
You're joking?
How were these pivotal, publicly-announced policies not Bush's?
Bush was President!
The May 16, 2003 CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government and the May 23, CPA
Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. "In short, Baath party members were barred from participation
in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with
them."
John Hay says that considering the discussions of these two areas of Iraq occupation policy
at two National Security Council meetings, (March 10 and March 12) "it is unclear whether Bush
himself knew about these policies before they were enacted."
But when two such vitally important polices were announced on May 16th and May 23rd, if the
President had seen that the announced policies were contrary to the policies he favored and
that Order Number 1 and Order Number 2 represented in effect a mid-level mutiny within his administration's
chain of command it was certainly Bush's duty as President to immediately rescind those policies
and to fire all of those responsible.
But President Bush didn't rescind the policies.
He didn't fire those who had issued policies allegedly contrary to his own.
Instead, he said nothing contrary to either CPA Order Number 1 or CPA Order Number 2 and allowed
the orders to stand.
I have no idea why the heading of this John Hay article claims that "the disastrous Iraq policies
that led to ISIS were not President Bush's" when in fact those policies WERE President Bush's.
I said at the time, it was obvious these clueless people were re-living WWII, and that it was
completely inappropriate, as are most historical comparisons. Rumsfeld even looked and talked
like someone out of the 1940s. It was comical in a sad sort of way. Virtually everyone in Saddam's
government was required to be a Baathist, down to the lowest levels. And there simply was not
the depth of education in the general population to be able to throw out an entire government,
including all of the working bureaucrats and to be able to quickly recruit new qualified people
and ramp up a new government effectively. It was not a developed country like Germany or Japan.
And just think about it. People who had spent their working lives in the Iraq government were
dumped out on the streets. And we thought they would consider us liberators?
When the story of America is written it will say that the fall came, not due to external aggression,
but to our own banal incompetence, prideful ignorance and hubris ..
Another way of saying we get the government we deserve and we're gonna' get it; good and hard.
So your point is that George "I am the Decider" Bush should not be blamed because all of the people
that he hand-picked and then trusted implicitly with no oversight are the ones who really screwed
up, is that it?
Don't get me wrong I'm all in favor of naming the names of all the advisors down the line,
and holding them appropriately responsible (seeing as how they all continue to be employed as
advisors to the current candidates); but that in no way lets W off the hook for his own incompetence
as a leader.
"Political progress has come to a near standstill, and most of the established benchmarks for
progress including provincial elections, the passage of de-Baathification laws, and a plan for
oil revenue-sharing are far from reach." Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, January
10, 2008.
Two days before the Iraqi parliament unanimously passed the "Accountability and Justice" de-Baathification
law.
I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast
a ballot for GW Bush in 2000.
After all not only Bush's lack of foreign policy experience, but his inability to really
speak in depth on foreign policy during the campaign, constituted huge red flags. Yet voters lined
up to vote for this man who not only was inexperienced but seemed disinterested in foreign policy
a complete lightweight because as I heard over and over they were confident that he would
surround himself with "smart people" who would guide him.
So basically everyone who voted for Bush deliberately voted for those self-same "smart people",
instead of the highly experienced and clearly well informed Gore, had served in Vietnam, had served
on the House Intelligence Committee (and introduced and arms control plan), had sat on the Senate
Homeland Security and Armed Services Committees, and had a record of trying to pull US support
for Saddam back in the 80's, when the Reagan Administration was still sending arms and money (Reagan
threatened a veto of his bill).
The GOP voters chose Bush knowing full well that guys like Bremer, Feith, Wolfowitz, Libby,
Pearle, and of course Cheney were going to be the ones doing all the heavy lifting on our foreign
policy.
Whether he knew it or not Bush '43 inherited a mess left by his father and Clinton. All of those
PNAC members believed they could subjugate Iraq and the rest would fall in line were mistaken.
The men and women who died in the Middle East from 1990 thru today were wasted.
I think the headline and tagline actually do a disservice to this otherwise excellent article.
They bring the reader in with the assumption that the author is trying exculpate Bush by distancing
him from these terrible policies, but that assumed intent is not borne out by the actual text
("while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush "). I think this
is a very informative chronicle of how government can be co-opted by mid-level bureaucrats, and
perhaps a title change might better reflect this focus.
There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were inspired
by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany. For one of the lessons of that era was that
the policy of removing all Nazi Party members from positions of authority was foolish and made
governing Germany unmanageable. In due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and
many functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were
happy to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and
the transition out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state,
a member of the anti-Soviet alliance, in the West was successfully accelerated. It was only late
in the Twentieth Century, with the rise of the neo-cons in American politics, that this history
was revised and the wisdom of even bringing ex-Nazi scientists to the U.S., who enabled us to
develop a new generation of weapons and win the "space race" with the Soviet Union, began to be
questioned. Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant
reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which
tolerates it.
I agree with those above who note that Bush was no more ignorant of the policies being implemented
by his government in Iraq than were the American people who heard it reported. He has no excuse
for not countermanding orders which were not his. He is responsible for all of them.
This was without a doubt Bush's fault and his decision. He was just not intellectually strong
enough to challenge or question the expertise of others. So he just let things flow as they did
without giving them the resistance and or rejections.
By pure coincidence I have been reading Woodward's book State of Denial mentioned in this article
for the last several weeks and the key players don't share the view that Bush was left out of
these decisions. It's a very compelling read.
If you've read Greg Palast's 2006 book "Armed Madhouse", where he talked about the State Department's
and National Security Council's pre-9/11 Plan A (which would have kept the Baathist power structure
pretty much intact) and the neocons' post-9/11 Plan B (which purged the Baathists from the military
and government), then you already know about all of this.
I vividly remember being laughed at, as far back as 2002, when I asserted that this entire bit
of inevitable, impending foolishness was due to half of Bush's Cabinet being drawn from the ranks
of PNAC.
The media (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, et al) only report the "news" that is "print to fit." They have
no knowledge of the truth (or no desire to report it).
Project for the New American Century . . . it isn't difficult; simply spend some time reading
the contents of their website. Why NOT learn all you can about the members of the President's
Cabinet?
The mainstream media isn't going to do it. It's up to us.
Saddam had left a Mao-styled revolution of guerilla nature in place before the invasion even started.
The work of Ali Ballout a journalist confirmed this in 2003. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ballout1.html
There was no manner of invasion and occupation which would not have resulted in some type of
multi-pronged insurgencies and medium if not long term chaos.
Yes, the neocons assumed none of this, but they don't care much as long as they are not charged
with war crimes, their specific reputations are not harmed, and Israel is not threatened.
I absolutely hate the entire premise of the Iraq war but to play devil's advocate, are Conservative
non-interventionists saying that it would have been a success had we kept Saddam's army intact?
Certainly disbanding it was a disaster but I kind of shudder at the thought that this war can
somehow be justified on the basis that the occupation was simply botched.
On November 4, 1960 a group of us from my high school went to hear Dr. Wernher von Braun, who
was a featured speaker at the 76th Annual Convention of the Virginia Education Association in
Richmond. At the time von Braun was serving as director of the newly formed Marshall Space Flight
Center where he was the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that
would eventually propel the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.
Dr. von Braun gave a very inspiration address and those in our group most of whom were already
interested in a career in math, the sciences, and engineering-were thrilled.
The next week in school some of the teaching staff discussed with some of us who had attended
the speech the fact that Dr. von Braun had worked in Germany's rocket development program, where
he helped design and develop the V-2 at Peenemόnde; during that time he had been a member of the
Nazi Party and the SS and had at times been involved in the selection and supervision of some
of the forced labor that was used in the V-2 program at Peenemόnde. We all knew that, obviously,
Dr. von Braun and other German rocket scientists brought to the US after the war were exceptions
to the general US/Allied policy of de-Nazification. We, both students and teachers, had such an
interesting series of discussions with speakers on both sides of the issue.
William Dalton writes that "in due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and many
functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were happy
to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and the transition
out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state."
I agree with two important points that William Dalton makes:
(1) "Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant
reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which
tolerates it."
(2) "There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were
inspired by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany."
Without the de-Baathification, we may have ended up with a stable Iraqi government. That means
one that would now be headed by someone similar to Saddam Hussein. Until the people of Iraq can
resolve their differences and they don't show any evidence of approaching this point only
a despotic ruler can keep any order. The problem is that we don't want order. We want to chase
idealistic dreams. If we had any rational assessment of the situation in the Middle East, we wouldn't
have gone there in the first place. So the de-Baathification was logically consistent with the
misguided nature of our overall mission.
It is useful to remember the real goal behind deBaathification. And it wasn't because it was strategic
from a military/security standpoint. It was strategic from a purely ideological standpoint.
After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had
been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into
both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know both countries flourished
economically in the coming decades.
The Bush Administration was filled with Heritage vetted appointees who wanted Iraq to be a
new model of what would happen if you took all the Heritage wet dreams and stick them into a
country and the moribund economy after the last decade of sanctions took off? It was to be a perfect
laboratory to demonstrate that right wing economic policies were the way to go. A flat tax, sale
of government assets to private companies, opening Iraq up to international corporations with
little or no regulation, dismantling Saddam's socialist economic infrastructure these were seemingly
prioritized more by the people the Bush Administration sent to Iraq that security concerns. Dedication
to Heritage/free market principles was valued for Reconstruction authorities over knowledge and
experience in Middle Eastern geopolitics.
And you had to deBaathify Iraq, totally cleanse the government of Baathist officials and laws,
to make the Heritage Foundation's dream come true. In their mind, the deck was stacked oil revenues
would guarantee success for their experiment, and provide a counter-narrative to the post-war
economic successes of Germany and Japan.
Alas supply side economics can never fail it can only be failed. See Kansas today.
"You're the one we voted for
So you must take the blame
For handing out authority
To men who were insane"
And again those who voted for Bush in 2000 absolutely knew he was going to be handing out
that authority. They knowingly turned our foreign policy over to those "bureaucrats".
"Mr. Bush has unabashedly shown his dependence on Ms. Rice Ms. Rice's role is all the more
critical because Mr. Bush doesn't like to read briefing books on the nuts-and-bolts of national
security, and his lack of experience in foreign affairs has raised questions about his preparedness
for the White House. "
"While the junior Bush may lack his father's resume - CIA director, ambassador to China, architect
of the Gulf War victory - George W. has inherited some of his father's top aides, and with little
experience of his own, Bush says he will rely on their advice. "
"Mr Bush has shown little interest in getting to know the world beyond Texas, where he is governor,
having travelled abroad only three times in his adult life, excluding visits to neighbouring Mexico.
He has not even visited Canada. This means that Mr Bush, if he takes the White House, will inevitably
rely on more seasoned advisers in formulating America's future defence and foreign policy."
"I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast
a ballot for GW Bush in 2000."
I voted for G.W Bush for the Executive Office. And I have no issues taking responsibility for
my vote. I will also take responsibility for my failure in convincing him not to support:
1. the long term application of the PA
2. Invading Afghanistan as opposed to treating the matter as a course of law, thereby putting
the processes of the FBI, in conjunction with the State Department and if need be, the CIA, Special
Ops. using an incision instead of a cudgel.
3. Not invading Iraq at all
I completely and utterly failed. That failure resides quite deep in my being. However, being
a conservative is not really responsible for the decisions made. In fact, if anything conservative
thought would have steered a far different course.
_____________________
I do not think for a minute that the author is denying where the ultimate responsibility lies.
To say that the "buck" stops at the executive office goes without saying.
The article dissects the failure to its managers. It's like Benghazi. Sure the executive must
ultimately bare responsibility. However, understanding how the director of the State Department
mismanaged matters is important in understanding government. Especially in terms of accountability.
And at its core is one of the reasons that big government (scale and efficiency) is problematic
to any organization. The ability of senior and midlevel managers to avoid responsibility for their
choices by blaming the upper echelons.
The lines of ownership get blurred through weak "delegated" accountability. It's similar to
the arguments made about 9/11. Nothing in the Admin. was available for them to act in CONUS on
the actors involved because that information was not passed on by the agencies that had it. The
general "hair on fire" threat analysis did not include known terrorists that had made it to the
US. It did not include data that the same were learning to fly airliners minus landing and take
offs(?). Any of the knowledgeable agencies could have acted minus direct involvement of the WH,
but they did not. Those agencies: CIA, FBI, State Department and the airlines application of "no
fly lists".
Sure September 11 occurred while Pres. Bush was in office, but there is a reason why one delegates
authority.
As to Iraq, absolutely, heads should have rolled. All of which is a matter of management style
within an organizations culture and environment. And on a scale this large - anyone who doesn't
comprehend that vital errors are only covered by chance more often than not, doesn't get this
article in my view.
I will skip the sad tales of the Iraqi government being Nazi's, by way of Chalabi and company.
But an examination of large scale conflicts, such as WWII, for example will reveal managerial
disasters that cost lost lives needlessly.
The Iraq example has one over riding reality. We never should invaded in the first place. Here
I think the Pres. ignored his instincts. My opinion despite the "cowboy" image, Pres. Bush is
not a decisive gunslinger and given the 9/11 scenarios. He needn't have been. I think no small
number of choices were undermined by others.
While I certainly appreciate sanctimonious retorts. The emotional anger and dismay experienced
by most of the country played no small roll in the decisions, including that of no small number
of democrats and liberals.
Forget the WH and Congress, trying explaining in sane language why actions taken should not
have been to members of the public was tantamount to treason.
So taking a cue from the vote for Pres. Bush to blame. How about anyone who supported the use
of the military in both campaigns.
The article makes telling points against Bremer, Feith, et al., but that does not and should not
absolve GWB. He was President, and the buck stopped with him.
I would add two points. First that wars are always messy affairs. Anyone who talks of surgical
wars is either a fool or a fraud (if not both). Second, this whole chain of events started with
GHW Bush's decision to go to war in 1990.
Rock Sash, I don't know if you were responding to my post but just in case you were thank you,
it provides a good explanation. In short, the more rational management of Iraq leads us closer
to the pre-invasion Iraq version of Iraq which of course means that we should not have invaded.
No one is suggesting that Saddam was a good guy and in fact, now that they have been birthed,
I wish the current govt of Iraq well. As someone who respects the sovereignty of nations I am
appalled at those who want to meddle further in Iraq by partitioning their country into three
separate countries to fix a problem that we created because we don't like that the Shiites are
the majority and are predictably aligned with Iran. No, let's leave them alone and let them re-take
the Sunni portion of Iraq and try to re-integrate it back into their country. If we meddle and
try to create 'Sunnistan' then the geniuses in our country are going to discover that it will
be harder than they think to keep it from becoming ISI(S-) 2.
If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum. And still are i.e. Benghazi.
And it was probably always thus, no matter whose administration was in charge. This suggests the
presence of some deep-seated structural problems not only within the Executive Department but
with the very way in which we presume to govern ourselves as a country.
@Connecticut Farmer If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum.
It seems to me that inmates running the asylum has been a feature of GOP foreign policy for
awhile (eg Iran/Contra and Ollie North April Glaspie's assurances to Saddam that his border
dispute with Kuwait was not a concern to the US )
OTOH Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to
want to link Benghazi to everything.
"Conservative non-interventionists" worthy of the name would not attempt to justify the war,
period.
As far as voters owning a share of the guilt, I believe anyone who votes for candidates of
either of the corrupt duopoly rather than helping build alternative parties run the likely risk
of sharing
in any unjustified intervention ultimately carried out.
Granted this belief rests on the assumption both the GOP and Dems are either irredeemable or a
viable multiparty system is necessary to nudge them into redemption.
@ balconesfault who wrote: "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept
labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions
were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities."
You're right, balconesfault, that the "socialists" of the National Socialist German Workers
Party - like the "socialists" of the Union of Soviet "Socialist" Republics - banned membership
in all unions that were not under government control and they outlawed all strikes.
But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions. One of the means
by which the Nazis maintained strong popular support was through a generous welfare state that
particularly benefitted German lower classes. Hitler implemented price and rent controls, higher
corporate taxes, much higher taxes on capital gains, and subsidies to German farmers to protect
them from weather and price fluctuations. The Nazi government increased pension benefits substantially
and put in place a state-run health care system.
baconesfault "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions,
which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated
into both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know both countries
flourished economically in the coming decades."
Why must you always look at the world through donkey colored glasses?
Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included price controls
is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers of Ordo-liberalism,
Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms. Erhard in particular,
as Economics minister defied the occupation authority and abolished the price controls and other
economic controls that were in place, and at the same time introduced the deutsche mark, replacing
the reichsmark. A hard money policy is a tenet of Ordoliberalism. They reject the concept of economic
stimulus.
Ordo-liberalism is a system that is a "third way" system between classical liberalism and the
socialist system. Its based on free market economics, but the adherents believe government is
required to ensure free markets remain free from monopolies and other manipulations that may occur
that would destroy a free market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
@Johann Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included
price controls is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers
of Ordo-liberalism, Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms.
OK that's nice. You still did nothing to address the thesis.
The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's
ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good
for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which
creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want.
The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue
their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is
that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred
theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are,
in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist
environmentalists.
Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put
into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be
rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth
a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every
policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put
into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no
ownership restrictions.
Great comments. I'll reiterate what I said previously about the general topic:
I don't think there are enough sane "mid-level" Republicans in DC to properly staff any incoming
administration, even a Paul one. I know that sounds harsh, but I know it in my gut, is that fair?
By all available lights, Cheney/Rumsfeld types and their lackeys still dominate the GOP on foreign
policy, hell, if even the Democrats are compromised, it is beyond me how anyone can believe that
a newly moderate and sensible GOP foreign policy staff has magically materialized in the last
eight years but is somehow still keeping largely silent. Where are they? Where's the proof that
the risks have been mitigated?
@Kurt Gayle But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions.
I did not say that the Nazi's did not have a welfare state (although they did limit beneficiaries
to those of Aryan blood). I merely noted that the reconstruction authorities incorporated strong
welfare provisions into the post-war laws of Germany and Japan, and that those countries economies
(and quality of life) flourished in subsequent years.
baconesfault I don't think we are in much disagreement regarding the disaster that was Iraq's
occupation. I do not take issue with the fact that the Iraq economic disaster was set up by the
Bush administration. I don't think it was a failure of capitalism though. It was a long term Christmas
present for major corporations. And according to a friend of mine who was there as a civilian
working for the US Army Corps of Engineers, it was worse than crony capitalism. Outright theft
by contractors was rampant and purposely overlooked. I would not call that a failure of capitalism.
It was a predictable result of crony capitalism corruption and the lack of the rule of law.
"Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to want to
link Benghazi to everything."
I am unclear if you understand the concept here. It is not generally referred to as surgical
warfare, though I get why you use the term. It's surgical "strike".
Those uses of force with very specific objectives and generally limitted goals. Ten tears too
late and anti-climatic at best, the capture of Bin Laden would be considred such an operation.
The Benghazi matter is simple. The executive in the WH delegatese State Deapt operations to
the Sec of State. While he is ultimately responsible because he sits at the head. The immediate
responsibility rests with those to whom he delegates authority. The Embassy personnnel send tepetaed
dispatches that the security environment in Libya id deteriorating and doing so quickly. They
dispatch the need for help. The State department misjudges, mischaracterizes or ignors the on
the scene damage reports and the call for help. Instead choosing to focus on the political response
to Libyan violence. Embassy is attacked and personnel are killed.
The Sec of State is immediately responsible. We now no so much more based on the details of
events. That anyone in the State Department should be ashamed for blaiming the matter on internet
videos or anything else other than our support for a rebellion, that backfired.
On the larger question, to accountability - Executives can mullify the impact by taking corrective
action and or holding his delegates responsible. I think the perception here is that no one has
been held accountable in either admin.
Perhaps, Sec. Clinton lost her position at the state department as consequence. But the accountability
for failed leadership in several disasterous foreign policy advances seems to be a bid for the
WH. Which begs the question - what does accountability mean.
In either admin. it seems to hold no value. I think the article demonstrates the issues very
well.
Very interesting article. I understand that it is not an apology or an excuse for W. Rather, it
is a deconstruction of the antics of what The Economist once referred to as "this most inept of
administrations".
It makes sense. So much attention is paid to the Executive that not enough is paid to the coterie
that comes with him. In W's case the was Cheney, Rove and those whom Bush Sr. referred to as "the
crazies in the basement".
Considering the role that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith et al played in ginning
up the war, it is not surprising that they and their cohort proceeded to screw it up once they
got it.
It was ill conceived and poorly executed and rightly stands as our most disastrous foreign
policy bungle ever. The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived,
only poorly executed, shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing.
@EliteCommInc I think the confusion I have here is over accountability for strategy, versus
accountability for tactics.
The de-Baathification of Iraq was a strategy. It was an enormous, ground changing plan, and
one would expect accountability for this to run directly to the Chief Executive, not only for
the giving responsibility for designing the strategy, but for approving the strategy itself.
Similarly, for the examples I brought up Iran/Contra was a strategy. Selling weapons to Iran
and using money to fund insurgents in Nicaragua wasn't simply a matter of tactics. Again, it was
the responsibility of the POTUS to know this was going on, and Reagan failed on this count. Whether
or not the US had an interest in preserving the integrity of Kuwait's borders with Iraq was a
strategy, and not simply a tactic, and the President should have been involved in approving any
communications with Saddam on that point.
Benghazi was a tactical failure. In a sense it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State
Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody
in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of
course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was
due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job.
To the extent that someone dropped the ball with Benghazi, this wasn't due to mid-level bureaucrats
making their own policies independent of the POTUS. Our involvement in Libya itself was a strategy,
and Mr. Larison has repeatedly pointed out how it's a shame that the Benghazi committee has microfocused
on the tactics of protecting the consulate and the responsibility for failure to do so, rather
than on the strategy that put our diplomatic personnel in the middle of that tinderbox in the
first place.
That said, President Obama has clearly taken responsibility for the strategy. Our air cover
for Libyan rebels, and our subsequent diplomatic efforts, are on his plate.
Excuse me, but I knew before! the invasion that toppling Hussein and installing a Shiite regime
would unsettle that country and lead to civil war. I erred in thinking the civil war part would
happen sooner than it has. I am simply an informed housewife and librarian. George Bush should
have known, too, without any advisers telling him. Don't give me the both sides do it malarkey.
In the above cases within the strategy or tactic, it's remains the case of indivual failure.
________________
"The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived, only poorly executed,
shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing."
In one of my rare defenses, I think you are dancing with an unknown. Whether the Iraq invasion
was wise or not is not really part of the question here. While one can acknowledge it's overall
veracity, ther is value in examining the details of what transpired afterwards that made matters
worse.
And i think disbanding the military was a huge contributor to subsequent events. And obviously
so. For the message was that members of the military were essentially now enemies of the state
they once fought to protect and as such they were on their own aort from state function. Excuse
me but departing weapons in hand to fight back against any reprisals or making the efforts of
the US and their newly established system makes perfect sense.
AHd they not disbanded the military which includes the admin. bureacracy, despite the head
having been dismantled would have vital foundational systems in place upon which basic services
would have remained functional, including and not the least of which was running water, electricty
and basic policing.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the invasion. Making assessments about subsequent decisions
and implementation are valuable in understanding what happened during the occupation. No doubt
that Iraqis patrolling the streets, who the people, the language, customs and had some legtmate
established authority would have been less problematic than US servicemen and, especially women
playingthat role.
Trump essentially betrayed Flynn, who tried to did the billing of Kushner and persuade Russia to abstain from anti-Israel vote.
Notable quotes:
"... The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts' conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western universities. ..."
"... There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. ..."
"... General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept. ..."
"... in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion itself. ..."
"... The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true. ..."
"... My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence. ..."
"... I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations that he discusses in his book. ..."
"... Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals and reactionaries of political Islam. ..."
"... One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics," whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam." ..."
When I had heard
in the news that Lt Gen Flynn might be chosen by Donald Trump as his Vice Presidential nominee,
I was quick to do some research on Flynn and came across this work. Having worked in the intelligence
community myself in the past several years, I was intrigued to hear what the previous director
of the DIA had to say. I have read many books on the topic of Islam and I am glad I picked this
up.
The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts'
conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the
message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that
spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western
universities.
If you have formed your opinion of Islam and the nature of the West's fight in the Middle East
on solely what you hear in the main steam media (all sides), you would do well to read this book
as a starting point into self-education on an incredibly complex topic.
There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration
with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. Usually this political opining
in a work such as this is distracting, but it does add much-needed context to decisions and events.
That said, Lt Gen Flynn did a great job addressing a complex topic in plain language. While this
is not a seminal work on
General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly
in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely
define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama
administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept.
He supports what he can
tell us with citations. Radical Islam has declared war on Western democracies, most of all on
the US. Its allies include Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and others. Their war against us
is a long-term effort, and our politicians (except Trump?) don't want to hear it. We need to demand
that our politicos prepare for this assault and start taking wise, strong steps to defeat it.
Western Europe may already have been fatally infiltrated by "refugees" who will seek to Islamize
it, and current birth rates suggest that those nations will have Muslim majorities in 20 years.
General Flynn details what we must do to survive the assault. I bought the Kindle version and
began reading it, but then paid more for the audible version so that I could get through it faster.
Please buy and read this book!
Looking Inward First, is What Generates the Strategy-Shifting Process. Flynn Gets This. Few
Others Do.
To begin with, I will say that the book is not exactly what one might expect from a recently
retired General. For starters, there were numerous spelling errors, an assortment of colloquialisms
and some instances in which the prose took on a decidedly partisan tone. The means of documenting
sources was something akin to a blog-posting, in that he simply copied and pasted links to pages,
right into the body of the work. I would have liked to have seen a more thoroughly researched
and properly cited work. All of this was likely due to the fact that General Flynn released his
book in the days leading up to Donald J. Trump's announcement of his Vice Presidential pick. As
Flynn is apparently a close national security advisor to Trump, I can understand why his work
appears to be somewhat harried. Nonetheless, I think that the book's timeliness is useful, as
the information it contains might be helpful in guiding Americans' election choices. I also think
that despite the absence of academic rigor, it makes his work more accessible. No doubt, this
is probably one of Mr. Trump's qualities and one that has catapulted him to national fame and
serious consideration for the office he seeks. General Flynn makes a number of important points,
which, despite my foregoing adverse commentary, gives me the opportunity to endorse it as an essential
read.
In the introductory chapter, General Flynn lays out his credentials, defines the problem, and
proceeds to inform the reader of the politically guided element that clouds policy prescriptions.
Indeed, he is correct to call attention to the fact that the Obama administration has deliberately
exercised its commanding authority in forbidding the attachment of the term "Islam" when speaking
of the threat posed by extremists who advocate and carry out violence in the religion's name.
As one who suffered at the hands of the administration for speaking truth to power, he knows all
too well what others in the Intelligence Community (IC) must suffer in order to hold onto their
careers.
In chapter one, he discusses where he came from and how he learned valuable lessons at home
and in service to his country. He also gives the reader a sense of the geopolitical context in
which Radical Islamists have been able to form alliances with our worst enemies. This chapter
also introduces the reader to some of his personal military heroes, as he delineates how their
mentorship shaped his thinking on military and intelligence matters. A key lesson to pay attention
to in this chapter is what some, including General Flynn, call 'politicization of intelligence.'
Although he maintains that both the present and previous administration have been guilty of this,
he credits the Bush administration with its strategic reconsideration of the material facts and
a search for better answers. (He mentions this again in the next chapter on p.42, signifying this
capability as a "leadership characteristic" and later recalls the president's "insight and courage"
on p. 154.)
Chapter two of The Field of Fight features an excellent summary of what transpires in a civil
war and the manner in which Iraqis began to defect from al-Qa'ida and cooperate with U.S. forces.
In this task, he explains for the layperson what many scholars do, but in far fewer pages. Again,
this makes his work more accessible. He also works through the process of intelligence failures
that are, in his opinion, produced by a superordinate policy failure housed in the upper echelons
of the military structure. In essence, it was a misperception (willful or not) that guided thinking
about the cause of the insurgency, that forbade an ability to properly address it with a population-centric
Counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. He pays homage to the adaptability and ingenuity of General
Stanley McChrystal's Task Force 714, but again mentions the primary barrier to its success was
bureaucratic in nature.
The main thrust of chapter 3, aptly named "The Enemy Alliance," is geared toward tying together
the earlier assertion in chapter regarding the synergy between state actors like Iran, North Korea,
Syria, and the like. It has been documented elsewhere, but the Iranian (non-Arab Shi'a) connection
to the al-Qa'ida (Arab Sunni) terrorist organization can't be denied. Flynn correctly points out
how the relationship between strange bedfellows is not new in the Middle East. He briefly discusses
how this has been the case since the 1970s, with specific reference to the PLO, Iran, Syria, Hamas,
Hezbollah, Bosnia and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's. He also references President Obama's "curious sympathy"
(p. 92) for enemies in places such as Venezuela and Cuba.
General Flynn then reminds readers of some facts that have either been forgotten, or virtually
unknown, by most Americans. Namely, the role that Saddam Hussein actually played with regard to
the recruitment of foreign terrorists, the internal policies of appeasement for Islamists in his
army and the support he lent to Islamists in other countries (e.g., Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan).
He also reminds the readers of the totalitarian mindset that consumes Islamist groups, such as
al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State. All the while, and in contrast to what his detractors might opine,
General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion
itself. This chapter is perhaps the most robust in the book and it is the sort of reading that
every American should do before they engage in conversations about the nature of political Islam.
Chapter four is a blueprint for winning what used to be called the 'global war on terror.' Although
such a phraseology is generally laughed at in many policy circles, it is clear, as General Flynn
demonstrates, that some groups and countries are locked in combat with us and our partners in
the West. Yet, as he correctly points out, the Obama administration isn't willing to use global
American leadership in order to defeat those who see us, and treat us, as their collective enemy.
General Flynn's prescription includes four strategic objectives, which I won't recite here, as
I'm not looking to violate any copyright laws. The essence of his suggestions, however, starts
with an admission of who the enemy is, a commitment to their destruction, the abandonment of any
unholy alliances we have made over the years, and a counter-ideological program for combating
what is largely an ideologically-based enemy strong suit. He points to some of the facts that
describe the dismal state of affairs in the Arab world, the most damning of which appear on pages
127-128, and then says what many are afraid to say on page 133: "Radical Islam is a totalitarian
political ideology wrapped in the Islamic religion." Nonetheless, Flynn discusses some of the
more mundane and pecuniary sources of their strength and the means that might be tried in an effort
to undermine them.
The concluding chapter of General Flynn's work draws the reader's attention to some of the works
of others that have been overlooked. He then speaks candidly of the misguided assumptions that,
coupled with political and bureaucratic reasons, slows adaptation to the changing threat environment.
Indeed, one of the reasons that I found this book so refreshing is because that sort of bold introspection
is perhaps the requisite starting point for re-thinking bad strategies. In fact, that is the essence
of both the academic and practical work that I have been doing for years. I highly recommend this
book, especially chapter 3, for any student of the IC and the military sciences.
It's ironic that the general wrote about Pattern Analysis, when DIA in late-1971 warned that
the Ho Chi Minh Trail was unusually active using this technique.
The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent
makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away
are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true.
My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC
in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and
during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available
for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive
of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence.
At a time when so much is hanging in the balance, General Flynn's book plainly
lays out a strategy for not only fighting ISIS/ISIL but also for preventing totalitarianism from
spreading with Russia, North Korea and Cuba now asserting themselves - again.
Sadly, because there is some mild rebuke towards President Obama, my fear is people who should
read this book to gain a better understanding of the mind of the jihadist won't because they don't
like their president being called out for inadequate leadership. But the fact remains we are at
war with not just one, but several ideologies that have a common enemy - US! But this book is
not about placing blame, it is about winning and what it will take to defeat the enemies of freedom.
We take freedom for granted in the West, to the point where, unlike our enemies, we are no
longer willing to fight hard to preserve those freedoms. General Flynn makes the complicated theatre
of fighting Radical Islam easier to understand. His experience in explaining how we can and have
won on the battlefield gives me great comfort, but also inspires me to want to help fight for
the good cause of freedom.
My sincerest hope is that both Trump and Clinton will read this book and then appoint General
Flynn as our next Defense Secretary!
I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical
Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations
that he discusses in his book. All of the radical fighting that has taken place in the world,
ever since the beginning evolution of the Islamic religion over 1400 years ago, has revolved around
radical interpretations of the Qur'an.
Until there is an Islamic religious reformation, there
will never be a lasting resolution to the current "Radical Islamic Terrorist" problem. It is a
religious ideology interpretation issue. Until that interpretation is resolved within the Islamic
world, there will always be continuing radical interpretation outbreaks, from within the entire
Islamic world, against all other forms of non-Islamic religions and their evolving cultures.
If
you require further insight, recommend you read " Heretic, Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now"
, by Ayaan Hirisi Ali. DCC
Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the
reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion
can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as
apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is
certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative
evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals
and reactionaries of political Islam.
One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more
that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics,"
whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with
the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam."
As if there is any relationship
to relationship to Islam other than it is the predominant religion in a majority of the area where
they commit their criminal activity. As if the political war with terrorist is a function of a
label that is of itself a oversimplification of the issues. Indeed, suggesting it is a nothing
more than 'political correctness" and ignoring the possibility that it might be a function of
setting the conditions in an otherwise polygon of political justice. This argument alone is evidence
of the his willingness to develop domestic political will for war with a simple argument. Nevertheless,
as a national strategy, it lacks the a foundational argument to motivate friendly regional actors
who's authority is founded on political Islam.
In 2008 a national election was held and the pyrrhic nature of the war in Iraq adjudicated
via the process of democratic choice that ended support for continued large scale conventional
occupation. That there is some new will to continue large scale conventional occupation seems
unlikely, and as a democratic country, leaders must find other means to reach the desired end
state, prosecuting contiguous operations to suppress, neutralize, and destroy "ALL" who use terrorism
to expand and enforce their political will with a deliberate limited wars that have methodological
end states. Lastly, sounding more like a General MacArther, the General Flynn's diffuse strategy
seems to ignore the most principles of war deduced by Von Clausewitz and Napoleon: Concentration
of force on the objective to be attacked. Instead, fighting an ideology "Radical Islam" seems
more abstract then any splatter painting of modern are in principle form it suggests a commitment
to simplicity to motivate our nation to prepare for and endure the national commitment to a long
war.
Since we can all agree there is no magical solution, then normative pragmatism of the likes
that General. Flynn's assessment provides, must be taken into account in an operation and tactical
MDMP. Ignoring and silencing Subject Matter Experts (SME's) will net nothing more than failure,
a failure that could be measured in innocent civilian lives as a statistical body count. I could
see General Flynn's suggestions and in expertise bolstering a movement to establish a CORP level
active duty unit to prepare, plan, and implemented in phases 0, IV, & V (JP 5-0) . Bear in mind,
Counter Insurgency (COIN) was never considered a National strategy but instead at tactical strategy
and at most an operational strategy.
Several times in its nearly 250 years of existence our Nation has been at
a crossroads. Looking back on our War for Independence, the Civil War, and WWII we know the decisions
made in those tumultuous times forever altered the destiny of our Republic.
We are once again at one of those crossroads where the battle lines have been drawn, only this
time in an asymmetrical war between western democracy and the radical Islamists and nation states
who nurture them. In his timely book Field of Fight, Lt. General Michael T. Flynn provides a unique
perspective on this war and what he believes are some of the steps necessary to meet this foe.
Field of Fight begins as an autobiography in which the author gives you a sense of who he is
as a man and a soldier. This background information then provides the reader with a better perspective
through which to evaluate his analysis of the challenges we face as well as the course of action
he believes we need to take to meet those challenges.
The following are a few of the guidelines General Flynn proposes for developing a winning strategy
in our war with radical Islam and other potential foes:
1. Properly assess your environment and clearly define your enemy;
2. Face reality for politicians, this is never an easy thing to do;
3. Understand the social context and fabric of the operational environment;
4. Recognize who's in charge of the enemy's forces.
In Field of Fight General Flynn makes the case that we are losing this war with radical Islam
because our nation's leadership has failed to develop a winning strategy. Further he opines that
our current leaders lack the clarity of vision and moral certitude that understands American democracy
is a "better way", that not all forms of human government are equal, and that there are principled
reasons worth fighting for - the very basic of those being, "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness."
I'll admit I'm concerned about the future of our country. As a husband and a father of five
I wonder about the world we leaving for our children to inherit. I fear we have lost our moral
compass thus creating a vacuum in which human depravity as exemplified by today's radical Islamists
thrives.
Equally concerning to me is what happens when the pendulum swings the other way. Will we have
the moral and principled leaders to check our indignation before it goes too far? When that heart
rending atrocity which is sure to come finally pushes the American people to white hot wrath who
will hold our own passions in check? In a nation where Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are an
outdated notion what will keep us from becoming that which we most hate?
As I stated at the start of this review, today we are at a crossroads. Once again our nation
needs principled men and women in positions of leadership who understand the Field of Fight as
described by General Flynn and have the wisdom and courage to navigate this battlefield.
* * *
In summary, although I don't agree with everything written in this book I found it to be an
educational read which will provided me with much food for thought over the coming months. As
a representative republic choosing good leadership requires that we as citizens understand the
problems and challenges we face as a nation. Today radical Islam is one of those challenges and
General Flynn's book Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its
Allies gives a much needed perspective on the subject.
Gen Flynn has been in the news a lot lately. He apparently did not get on well in DC with his
views on fighting terrorism. That is very relevant now as we are seeking better ways to fight
ISIS and terror in general. I read his book today to learn what is on his mind. Flynn had a lot
of experience starting in the 82nd Airborne and was almost always in intelligence work. Army intelligence
is narrowly focused - where is the enemy, how many of them are there, how are they armed and what
is the best way to destroy them. Undoubtedly he was good at this. However, that is not the kind
of intelligence we need to defeat ISIS. Flynn's book shows no sign of cultural awareness, which
is the context by which we must build intelligence about our opponent. In Iraq, he did learn the
difference between who was Sunni and who was Shia but that was it. He shows no sign of any historical
knowledge about these groups and how they think and live. In looking at Afghanistan, he seems
unaware of the various clans and languages amongst different people. The 2 primary languages of
Afghanistan are Pashto and Dari. Dari is essentially the same as Farsi, so the Persian influence
has been strong in the country for a long time. Flynn seems totally unaware. Intelligence in his
world is obtained from interrogation and captured documents. They are processed fast and tell
him who their next target should be. This kind of work is not broad enough to give him a strategic
background. He sees USA's challenges in the world as a big swath of enemies that are all connected
and monolithic. North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Syria, ISIS, and so forth. All need to be dealt
with in a forceful manner. He never seems to think about matching resources with objective.
This monlithic view of our opponents is obviously wrong. Pres George W Bush tried it that way
with the Axis of Evil. The 1950's Cold War was all built in fear of the monolithic Soviet Union
and China. All these viewpoints were failures.
Flynn does not see it though. In the book, Flynn says invading Iraq in 2003 might have been the
wrong choice. He would have invaded Iran. The full Neocon plan was for 7 countries in 5 years,
right after knocking down Iraq, then we would do the same to Iran. I hope we have lost a lot of
that hubris by now. But with poor vision by leaders like Flynn, we might get caught up again in
this craziness.
To beat ISIS and Al Qaeda type groups we need patience and allies. We have to dry up the source
of the terrorists that want to die. That will be done with a combination of cultural outreaches
as well as armed force.
I am sure the Presidential candidates will both see that Flynn does not have that recipe. Where
is a General that does? We have often made this mistake. Sixty Six years ago, we felt good that
Gen Douglas MacArthur "knew the Oriental mind" and he would guid us to victory in Korea. That
ended up as a disaster at the end of 1950. I think we are better off at working with leaders that
understand the people that are trying to terrorize us. Generals don't develop those kinds of empathic
abilities.
95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those
already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead
to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment
I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This
is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.
And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden
with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to
chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared
intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job.
He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back
from Russia and get the death penalty for treason.
Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against
Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states
and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts
to U.S. interests,".
That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up
the Iran deal.
Many of you here are extremely naοve regarding Trump.
b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run
by a deep-state faction that found the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.
Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible.
Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The
neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon-unfriendly President
was elected.
Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result
in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants
a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and
buy arms.
And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a
placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran,
and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all
the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.
What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign
pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military),
the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.
And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim
that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't
attacked like that before the election, huh?
The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:
>> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?
>> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only
check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that has produced a
brittle social fabric.
>> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow
the another to gain power?
Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump
protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction or a real attempt at a 'color
revolution'.
"... as sheltered intellectuals, often in cluttered small offices, many found it exciting to imagine themselves ruling much of the world, like the old Roman proconsuls. ..."
"... But more unending wars will continue to sap America's strength and prejudice the world's former goodwill toward our nation. Empires all eventually make a transition from where they are profitable to when they become destructively bankrupting. ..."
Even before the Iraq War,
John Bolton was
a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda. Long ago I wrote about him,
in "John Bolton and U.S. Lawlessness,"
"The Bush administration's international lawlessness did not come from nowhere. Its intellectual
foundations were laid long before 9/11 by neoconservatives." I quoted Bolton, "It is a big mistake
to for us to grant any validity to international law because over the long term, the goal of those
who think that it really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States." In fact
I set up a web page, the John
Bolton File , containing various links about him and the neocons.
Nearly all of Donald Trump's appointments to his transition team are very encouraging. Indeed,
I have known many of them for years. But he could undermine his whole agenda by allowing neocons
back into their former staffing and leadership role over Republican foreign policy. The
New York Times reported how many are now scrambling to get back into their old dominant
positions. And now National Review , which supported all the disasters in Iraq, has come out
to promote Bolton for secretary of state.
I have written about the neocons for many years. Their originators were former leftists who
later became anti-communists. After the collapse of communism, they provided the intellectual
firepower for hawks and imperialists who wanted an aggressive American foreign policy. Having lived
and done business for many years in the Third World, I thought they would only bring about disasters
for America. What especially interested me was their almost total lack of experience in and knowledge
about the outside world, particularly Asia and Latin America. I even set up a web page called
War Party Neoconservative
Biographies as I researched their education and experience.
Brilliant academics as many of them were, their "foreign" experience was at best a semester
or two in London or, for the more daring, some studies in Paris or, for the Jewish ones, a summer
on a kibbutz in Israel.
They are above all Washington insiders. John Bolton is very typical. A summa cum laude graduate
of Yale, then Yale Law School, time with a top Washington law firm, and then various academic and
political appointments, but no foreign living or work experience.
Also, as sheltered intellectuals,
often in cluttered small offices, many found it exciting to imagine themselves ruling much of the
world, like the old Roman proconsuls.
Long ago
Peter Viereck explained them with
his observation about the vicarious "lust of many intellectuals for brute violence." No wonder they
urged Bush on to his disastrous war and occupation policies. Even before Iraq they were first urging
dominance over Russia and then military confrontation with China, when a U.S. spy plane was collided
by a Chinese fighter plane. It wasn't just the Arab world which was in their sights.
I write about all this based on my own experience of studying in Germany and France, working 15
years in South America, and speaking four languages fluently.
Trump appointments so far are really showing his focus upon getting America back on track with
faster economic growth, which has been so stunted by Obama's runaway regulatory regime. To understand
their costs, see analysis in the Competitive Enterprise Institute's
"Ten Thousand Commandments."
But more unending
wars will continue to sap America's strength and prejudice the world's former goodwill toward our
nation. Empires all eventually make a transition from where they are profitable to when they become
destructively bankrupting. Few would now doubt that America has crossed this threshold. When it costs
us a million dollars per year per man to field combat infantry in unending wars, we will face
economic ruin just like happened with the Roman Empire.
The risk is that Trump's foreign-affairs transition team becomes infiltrated. Much of the transition
is being run out of the Heritage Foundation, which was a big promoter of the Iraq War.
Pence is great on domestic issues but not on foreign policy. Although a Catholic, he also is
very close to those evangelicals who believe that supporting Israel's expansion will help to speed
up the second coming of Christ and, consequently, Armageddon. One must assume that he, together with
the military-industrial complex, is plugging for the neoconservatives again to work their agenda
upon America and the world.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative .
Speaking to foreign heads of state without briefing papers from neocon bottom feeders from the State
Department might be a wise move.
And meaningful contact with such the nation's foreign policy professionals as
Samantha Paul or Victoria Nuland
is probably impossible ;-).
"...turning a blind eye to Russia's designs on Ukraine and its support for the Assad regime
in Syria." might be what is really needed for the USA foreigh policy.
Like his new boss, Flynn appears very comfortable with the current Russian regime, working with
Russia Today , the Kremlin's propaganda TV network. He apparently
received classified intelligence briefings while running a lobbying firm for foreign clients.
He seems to favor working with Russia to combat Islamist terrorists while turning a blind eye
to Russia's designs on Ukraine and its support for the Assad regime in Syria.
... ... ..
In the brief time since he won the election, Trump's first call with a world leader was not
with a trusted US ally but with the Egyptian dictator President al-Sisi. He sat with prime minister
Abe of Japan this week, but his aides told the Japanese
not
to believe every word Trump said.
He met with the populist right wing British politician Nigel Farage before meeting the British
prime minister Theresa May. But he somehow found time to meet with several Indian
real estate developers to discuss his property interests with them, and the Trump Organization
signed a
Kolkata deal on Friday.
Amid his many interactions with foreign powers, Trump is speaking without briefing papers from
the State Department because his transition team is in such chaos that they have yet to establish
meaningful contact with the nation's foreign policy professionals.
ALEPPO, Syria - In the midst of sectarian violence that has overtaken Syria for more than five
years, nine-year-old Asil Kassab is shocked by the defeat of Democratic presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton.
"I am so unhappy that a woman was not elected President," Asil said, briefly ducking as a bomb
from an American MQ-1 Predator drone leveled the hospital behind her. "Hillary Clinton is truly a
role model for young girls like me. I was so hoping that she'd be the one to order the drone
strike that would inevitably end my life."
Despite Clinton's support for regime change in Syria, leading to what is arguably one of the
greatest humanitarian crises of the early century, Kassab surprisingly says she holds no ill
will.
"I don't put much stock in the misogynist agenda of American politics," said Kassab, who, like
many children, cannot remember a time before the war that has killed 400,000 people, including
her family, and created over 4.7 million refugees. "People will always criticize her because she
is a woman in a man's world; One who has the audacity to run for President."
"It is sexism that motivates her critics, plain and simple," she added. "It is sexism, and
racism, that caused her to lose the election!"
"... I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia. (My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.) ..."
"... IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU. ..."
"... 'Obama Urges Trump to Maintain Pointless, Hyper-Aggresive Encirclement of Russia Strategy, Acknowledge Nuclear Apocalypse "Inevitable"' ..."
"... In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office. ..."
"... The good people of the US are awaiting DHS' final report on Russia's attempts to hack our elections. We deserve as much. ..."
"... If there's any basis to the allegations it's about time someone provided it. Up till now it's been unfounded assertions. Highly suspect at that. ..."
"... My guess is the whole Russian boogeyman was a ploy to attract those "moderate Republicans" who liked Romney. ..."
"... "My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our approach." ..."
"... Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international norms ..."
"... Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things like that without vomiting? ..."
I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia.
(My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another
place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.)
IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted
to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might
have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his
own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU.
Which I am sure he will do once everyone recognizes that that is the appropriate thing to do.
But as we well know everyone else will have to do the heavy lifting of figuring that out before
he will even acknowledge the possibility.
In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter
and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he
goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go
the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office.
In this case, Obama is probably too vain and Michelle being the saner of the two might rein
him in? Best of any world would, as you say, STFU. (As the Ex Prez. Obamamometer, that is probably
not in the cards.)
Maybe he will end up like Geo Bush, sitting in the bathtub drooling while he paints childish
self-portraits
Or maybe he will end up like OJ, where he tries to go hang out with all his cool friends and they
tell him to get lost
Ppl still mention him as a master orator, etc. Lots of post presidency speaking engagements
I suppose. I'd prefer him not to but then again if he makes enough annually from it to beat the
Clintons we might get the satisfaction of annoying them
"My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach,
finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that
the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values
and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow
exactly our approach." What Obama is saying is he wants Russia to join America in bombing
hospitals, schools, children, doctors, public facilities like water treatment plants, bridges,
weddings, homes, and civilians to list just few while arming and supporting terrorists for regime
change. And if anyone points this out, Russia like the US is supposed to say "I know you are but
what am I?"
Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so
enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international
norms
Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things
like that without vomiting?
Is this the same Russia that just hacked our election and subverted our fine democracy? Why,
President Obama, I believe it behooves you to stand up to Russia yourself. Show President-Elect
Trump how it is done sir!
"... "Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity." ..."
"Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the
Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who
would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate,
was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis.
"I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about
those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little
levity."
####
While I do have some quibbles with the piece (RuAF pilots are getting much more than 90 hours
a year flight time & equipment is overrated and unaffordable in any decent numbers), it is pretty
solid.
Castigating the US electorate as accomplices and facilitators of wars, or at best describing it as
ignorant sheep herded by political elites, speaks only to a partial reality; in public opinion polls,
even in ones weighted overwhelmingly to the center-right, the American people consistently opposse
militarism and wars, past and present.
The right and Left, each in their own way, fail to grasp the contradiction that define US political
life, namely, the profound gap between the American public and the Washington elite on questions
of war and peace, and the electoral process which results in the perpetuation of militarism. We will
proceed to analyze the most recent polling of US public opinion and then turn to the electoral outcomes.
In the second part we will discuss the contradictions and raise several ways in which the contradiction
can be resolved.
... ... ...
Analysis and Perspectives
On all major issues of foreign policy pertaining to war and peace, the political elite is far
more bellicose than the US public; far more likely to ignore wars that threaten national security;
more likely to violate the Constitution;and are committed to increasing military spending even as
it reduces social programs.
The political elites are more likely to intervene or become "entangled" in Middle East wars, against
the opinion of majoritarian popular opinion. No doubt the decidedly oligarchical military-industrial
complexes, Israeli power configuration and mass media publicists, are far more influential than the
pro-democracy public.
The future portends the political elites' continuation of military policies, increasing security
threats and diminishing public representation.
Some Hypothesis on the Contradiction between Popular Opinion and Electoral Outcomes
There is clearly a substantial gap between the majority of Americans and the political elite regarding
the military's role overseas, wars, constitutional prerogives, the demonization of Russia, the deployment
of US troops to Syria and the US entanglement in Middle East wars, which it is understood to be Israel.
Yet it is also a fact that the US electorate votes for the two major political parties that supports
wars, back Middle East alliances with warring states, Saudi Arabia and Israel,and sanction Russia
as the main threat to US security.
ORDER IT NOW
Several hypotheses regarding this contradiction should be considered.
1. Close to 50% of the electorate abstain from voting in Presidential and Congressional elections,
which most likely includes those Americans that oppose the US military role overseas. In other words
the war parties 'win' elections with 25% or less of the electorate.
2. The fact that the mass media vehemently supports one or the other of the two war parties probably
influences a minority of the electorate which votes in the elections. However, critics of the mass
media have exaggerated their influence because they fail to explain why the majority of the American
public respondents are in contrary to the mass media and oppose their militarist propaganda.
3. Many of the anti-militarism Americans who decide to vote for war parties may be choosing the
lesser evil. They may decide there are possible degrees of war mongering.
4. Americans who oppose militarism may decide to vote for militarist politicians for reasons other
than overseas wars. For example, majoritarian Americans may vote for a militarist politician who
secures financing for local infrastructure programs, or dairy subsidies or promises of employment,
or lowering the public debt or opposing corrupt incumbents.
5. Americans opposed to militarism may be deceived by demagogic war party presidential candidates
who promise peace and who, once in power, escalate wars.
6. Likewise, 'identity politics' can divert anti-militarist voters into supporting war party candidates
who claim office because of their race, ethnicity, gender, loyalties to overseas states and sexual
preference.
7. The war parties block anti-militarist parties from access to the mass media, especially during
electoral debates viewed by tens of millions. War parties establish onerous restrictions for registering
anti-militarist parties, voters with non-violent prison records or lacking photo identification or
transport to voting sites or time-off from work. In other words the electoral process is rigged and
imposes 'forced voting' and abstention: limited choices obligate abstention or voting for war parties.
Only if elections were open and democratic, where anti-militarist parties were allowed equal rights
to register and debate in the mass media, and where financial campaigns are equalized will the contradictions
between anti-militarist majorities and voters for pro-war elites be resolved.
"... Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency. ..."
"... As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia. ..."
"... Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. ..."
"... Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. ..."
"... Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income). ..."
"... Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse. ..."
"... It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich. ..."
Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the
fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the
2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street",
that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate,
the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself
as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency.
How will this change of guard at the White House change US foreign policy? Certainly, the core
objective of remaining the dominant global power will remain untouched. [Yet] this position is increasing
fragile. The USA is losing ground both within the economic and the political domains, [ceding] it
to China, Russia and other "emerging countries". This is why it is throwing the sword onto the scale.
This is followed by a series of wars where Hillary Clinton played the [lead] protagonist.
As her authorized biography reveals, she was the one as First Lady, to convince the President,
her consort, to engage in war to destroy Yugoslavia, initiating a series of "humanitarian interventions"
against "dictators" charged with "genocide".
As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama
to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the
one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia"
an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare
the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against
Russia.
Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump
Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no
air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around
US-led Nato. But he will of course thump his fists on the table to secure a deeper commitment,
particularly on military expenditure from the allies.
Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull
it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional
strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Such decisions, that will surely open the door for further wars, do not depend on Trump's warrior-like
temperament, but on centres of power wherein lies the matrix of command on which the White House
itself depends.
Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone
of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income).
Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and
which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically,
factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of
the US middle class becoming even worse.
Then you have the giants of the war industry that extract profit from war.
It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly
polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect],
Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich.
Dr Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, Sir Michael Fallon, and Priti Patel issued a joint rejection
The Government has rejected calls by two parliamentary committees for it to stop the sale of
British bombs to Saudi Arabia's armed forces in Yemen.
Saudi forces have been widely accused of committing war crimes during the campaign in the country,
where reports on the ground suggest they have blown up international hospitals, funerals, schools,
and weddings.
Despite the reported incidents and the worsening humanitarian situation in the country since
the bombardment began, the UK has signed off £3.3 billion in arms sales to the country since the
start of the offensive .
####
What's not to like about supping from the Wahabbi cup?
"... Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles. ..."
"... In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died." ..."
"... All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded. ..."
"... Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy." ..."
"... But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us ..."
Bolton was one of the loudest advocates of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and still stupefyingly insists
it was the right call 13 years later. "I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct,"
Bolton
said
just last year.
Trump, rightly, believes that decision was a colossal mistake that destabilized the region. "Iraq
used to be no terrorists," Trump said in 2015. "(N)ow it's the Harvard of terrorism."
"If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy,"
Trump said of Saddam Hussein, "but it was a lot better than it is right now."
Trump has said U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 "helped to throw the region into chaos and gave
ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper." In contrast, Bolton has
said explicitly that he wants to repeat Iraq-style regime change in Syrian and Iran.
You can't learn from mistakes if you don't see mistakes.
Trump has blamed George W. Bush,
Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list,
who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles.
In 2011, Bolton
bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic
interest in toppling Gaddafi But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice
and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton
bragged , "We came, we saw, he died."
When Trump was asked last year if Libya and the region would be more stable today with Gaddafi
in power, he
replied "100 percent." Mr. Trump is
100 percent right .
No man is more out of touch with the situation in the Middle East or more dangerous to our national
security than Bolton.
All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't
deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current
administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy
across the globe is demanded.
Woodrow Wilson would be proud, but the parents of our soldiers should be mortified. War should
be the last resort, never the first. War should be understood to be a hell no one wishes for. Dwight
Eisenhower
understood
this when he wrote, "I hate war like only a soldier can, the stupidity, the banality, the futility."
Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege
to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he
had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy."
But he's seems to be okay with your son or
daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us: "Even before the Iraq War, John Bolton
was a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda," notes
The American Conservative's Jon Utley.
At a time when Americans thirst for change and new thinking, Bolton is an old hand at failed foreign
policy.
Nearly 60% (58.3%) of the population in Ukraine lives below the poverty line, according to data of
the M.V. Ptukha Institute of Demography and Social Surveys, the National Academy of Science of Ukraine.
In 2015, this indicator was half as much 28.6%. "The poverty index has increased twofold along
with the actual cost of living," says Svetlana Polyakova , the leading research fellow at the Living
Standard Department at the Demography Institute. "In addition, within the past year, we saw a growth
of the poverty level defined by the UN criteria for estimation of internationally comparable poverty
line in Central and Eastern Europe."
The highest poverty line was registered among the families having at least one child 38.6% and
pensioners 23%. The situation may deteriorate this year. According to the State Service of Statistics,
savings of Ukrainians in April-June fell by 5.297billion hryvnias (more than $200 million at the
current exchange rate).
The cost of living in Ukraine in 2016 makes up 1,544 hryvnias (about $60).
Earlier, Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Groysman said the previous policy of populism and
"money printing and distribution to people" made the country weaker and the people poorer.
"... Trump, to a degree previously matched only by such outlier presidential candidates as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, is challenging Washington's conventional wisdom that America must dominate the globe. ..."
"... He also criticized nation-building. "We have a country that's in bad shape," he reasonably allowed: "I just think we have to rebuild our country." ..."
"... Fifth, foreign policy is ultimately about domestic policy. "War is the health of the state," Randolph Bourne presciently declared a century ago. There is no bigger big government program war, no graver threat to civil liberties than perpetual conflict with the homeland the battlefield, no greater danger to daily life than blowback from military overreach. ..."
Still, Trump, to a degree previously matched only by such outlier presidential candidates as Ron
Paul and Dennis Kucinich, is challenging Washington's conventional wisdom that America must dominate
the globe. The "usual suspects" who manage foreign policy in every administration, Republican and
Democrat, believe that the U.S. must cow every adversary, fight every war, defend every ally, enforce
every peace, settle every conflict, pay every bill, and otherwise ensure that the lion lies down
with the lamb at the end of time, if not before.
Not Donald Trump. He recently shocked polite war-making society in the nation's capital when he
criticized NATO, essentially a welfare agency for Europeans determined to safeguard their generous
social benefits. Before the Washington Post editorial board he made the obvious point that "NATO
was set up at a different time." Moreover, Ukraine "affects us far less than it affects other countries
in NATO, and yet we're doing all of the lifting." Why, he wondered? It's a good question.
His view that foreign policy should change along with the world scandalized Washington policymakers,
who embody Public Choice economics, which teaches that government officials and agencies are self-interested
and dedicated to self-preservation. In foreign policy that means what has ever been must ever be
and everything is more important today than in the past, no matter how much circumstances have changed.
Trump expressed skepticism about American defense subsidies for other wealthy allies, such as
South Korea and Saudi Arabia as well as military deployments in Asia. "We spent billions of dollars
on Saudi Arabia and they have nothing but money," he observed. Similarly, he contended, "South Korea
is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we're not reimbursed fairly for what we do."
He also criticized nation-building. "We have a country that's in bad shape," he reasonably allowed:
"I just think we have to rebuild our country."
Unlike presidents dating back at least to George H.W. Bush, Trump appears reluctant to go to war.
He opposed sending tens of thousands of troops to fight the Islamic State: "I would put tremendous
pressure on other countries that are over there to use their troops." Equally sensibly, he warned
against starting World War III over Crimea or useless rocks in East Asian seas. He made a point that
should be obvious at a time of budget crisis: "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore."
... ... ...
Fifth, foreign policy is ultimately about domestic policy. "War is the health of the state,"
Randolph Bourne presciently declared a century ago. There is no bigger big government program war,
no graver threat to civil liberties than perpetual conflict with the homeland the battlefield, no
greater danger to daily life than blowback from military overreach.
"... Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ". ..."
"... The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants needs is the USA as a *normal* nation. ..."
"... The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know. ..."
"... Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable. ..."
"... Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end. ..."
"... With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. ..."
So it has happened: Hillary did not win! I say that instead of saying that "Trump won" because
I consider the former even more important than the latter. Why? Because I have no idea whatsoever
what Trump will do next. I do, however, have an excellent idea of what Hillary would have done: war
with Russia. Trump most likely won't do that. In fact, he specifically said in his acceptance speech:
I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America's interests first,
we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations. We will seek
common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict .
And Putin's reply was immediate:
We heard the statements he made as candidate for president expressing a desire to restore relations
between our countries. We realise and understand that this will not be an easy road given the
level to which our relations have degraded today, regrettably. But, as I have said before, it
is not Russia's fault that our relations with the United States have reached this point.
Russia is ready to and seeks a return to full-format relations with the United States. Let
me say again, we know that this will not be easy, but are ready to take this road, take steps
on our side and do all we can to set Russian-US relations back on a stable development track.
This would benefit both the Russian and American peoples and would have a positive impact on
the general climate in international affairs, given the particular responsibility that Russia
and the US share for maintaining global stability and security.
This exchange, right there, is enough of a reason for the entire planet to rejoice at the defeat
of Hillary and the victory of Trump.
Will Trump now have the courage, willpower and intelligence to purge the US Executive from the
Neocon cabal which has been infiltrating it for decades now? Will he have the strength to confront
an extremely hostile Congress and media? Or will he try to meet them halfway and naively hope that
they will not use their power, money and influence to sabotage his presidency?
I don't know. Nobody does.
One of the first signs to look for will be the names and backgrounds of the folks he will appoint
in his new administration. Especially his Chief of Staff and Secretary of State.
I have always said that the choice for the lesser evil is morally wrong and pragmatically misguided.
I still believe that. In this case, however, the greater evil was thermonuclear war with Russia and
the lesser evil just might turn out to be one which will gradually give up the Empire to save the
USA rather than sacrifice the USA for the needs of the Empire. In the case of Hillary vs Trump the
choice was simple: war or peace.
Trump can already be credited with am immense achievement: his campaign has forced the US corporate
media to show its true face the face of an evil, lying, morally corrupt propaganda machine. The
American people by their vote have rewarded their media with a gigantic "f*ck you!" a vote of no-confidence
and total rejection which will forever demolish the credibility of the Empire's propaganda machine.
I am not so naive as to not realize that billionaire Donald Trump is also one of the 1%ers, a
pure product of the US oligarchy. But neither am I so ignorant of history to forget that elites
do turn on each other , especially when their regime is threatened. Do I need to remind anybody
that Putin also came from the Soviet elites?!
Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers,
in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should
be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy:
the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution,
and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with
everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility;
partnership, not conflict ".
The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict only ideological
issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe,
or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants needs
is the USA as a *normal* nation.
The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it,
but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage
to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush
him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power
has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of
WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know.
Make no mistake even if Trump does end up disappointing those who believed in him what happened
today has dealt a death blow to the Empire. The "Occupy Wall Street" did not succeed in achieving
anything tangible, but the notion of "rule of the 1%" did emerge from that movement and it stayed.
This is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order
of the USA: far from being a democracy, it is a plutocracy/oligarchy everybody pretty much accepts
that today. Likewise, the election of Trump has already proved that the US media is a prostitute
and that the majority of the American people hate their ruling class. Again, this is a direct blow
to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order. One by one the founding
myths of the US Empire are crashing down and what remains is a system which can only rule by force.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges
from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the
case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and
that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable.
Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end.
With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well
have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use
the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible
conditions for his country. Frankly, I am pretty sure that all the key world leaders realize
that it is in their interest to make as many (reasonable) concessions to Trump as possible and work
with him, rather than to deal with the people whom he just removed from power.
If Trump can stick to his campaign promises he will find solid and reliable partners in
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Neither Russia nor China have anything at all to gain from a confrontation
or, even less so, a conflict with the USA. Will Trump have the wisdom to realize this and use it
for the benefit of the USA? Or will he continue with his anti-Chinese and anti-Iranian rhetoric?
"... Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. ..."
"... Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history." ..."
"... Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done. ..."
The extraordinary repudiation -- partly based on Trump's rejection of basic US foreign policy
tenets, including support for close allies -- helped spark the hashtag #NeverTrump. Now, a source
familiar with transition planning says that hard wall of resistance is crumbling fast.
There are "boxes" of applications, the source said. "There are many more than people realize."
Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include
former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. "Mea
culpas" are being considered -- and in some cases being granted, the source said -- for people who
did not go a step further in attacking Trump personally.
... ... ...
Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk
our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience"
to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history."
Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might
encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has
refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done.
It remains to be seen what kind of team Trump will pull together, how many "NeverTrumpers" will apply
for positions and to what degree the President-elect will be willing to accept them.
There's a fight underway within the Trump transition team about whether to consider "never Trumpers"
for jobs, one official tells CNN. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is leading the transition
team, has been working to persuade Trump and other top officials to consider Republicans who openly
opposed his campaign. That has caused some friction with those who see no place for people who didn't
support their candidate.
NATO strategists are reportedly planning for a scenario in which Trump orders US troops out of Europe,
as the shock result of the US presidential election sinks in, spreading an atmosphere of uncertainty.
According to Spiegel magazine,
strategists from NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg's staff have drafted a secret report
which includes a worst-case scenario in which Trump orders US troops to withdraw from Europe and
fulfills his threat to make Washington less involved in European security. Read more
German
defense minister says Trump should be firm with Russia as NATO stood by US after 9/11
"For the first time, the US exit from NATO has become a threat" which would mean the end
of the bloc, a German NATO officer told the magazine.
During his campaign, Trump repeatedly slammed NATO, calling the alliance "obsolete." He
also suggested that under his administration, the US may refuse to come to the aid of NATO allies
unless they "pay their bills" and "fulfill their obligations to us."
"We are experiencing a moment of the highest and yet unprecedented uncertainty in the transatlantic
relationship," said Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador in Washington and head of the
prominent Munich Security Conference. By criticizing the collective defense, Trump has questioned
the basic pillar of NATO as a whole, Ischinger added.
The president-elect therefore has to reassure the European allies that he remains firm on the
US commitment under Article 5 of the NATO charter prior to his inauguration, the top diplomat stressed.
Earlier this week, Stoltenberg lambasted Trump's agenda, saying: "All allies have made a solemn
commitment to defend each other. This is something absolutely unconditioned."
Fearing that Trump would not appear in Brussels even after his inauguration, NATO has re-scheduled
its summit expected to take place in early 2017 to next summer, Spiegel said.
The report might reflect current moods within the EU establishment as well, as Jean-Claude Juncker,
President of the European Commission, has called on the member states to establish Europe's own military.
Washington "will not ensure the security of the Europeans in the long term... we have to do this
ourselves," he argued on Thursday.
If Trump is serious about reducing the number of US troops stationed in Europe, large NATO countries
like Germany have little to offer, Spiegel said. Even major member states' militaries lack units
able to replace the Americans, which in turn may trigger debate on strengthening NATO's nuclear arm,
a sensitive issue in most European countries for domestic reasons.
Still, an increase in defense spending has already been approved by the Europeans following pressure
from the outgoing US administration. Over the past few days in Brussels, representatives of NATO
states have been working on the so-called "Blue Book," a secret strategy paper which stipulates
each member's contribution in the form of troops, aircraft, warships, and heavy armor until 2032,
Spiegel reported.
The document stipulates an increase in each NATO members' military spending by one percent of
each nation's GDP, in addition to the current two percent.
Uncertainty over Trump's NATO policy seems to be taking its toll; Germany, one of the largest
military powers in Europe, plans to allocate 130 billion euros ($140bn) to military expenditures
by 2030, but the remarkable figure may be a drop in the ocean.
"No one knows yet if the one percent more would be enough," the German NATO officer told Spiegel.
Nevertheless, the US is continuing to deploy troops to eastern Europe, justifying the move with
the need to protect the region from "assertive Russia." Earlier this week, the largest arms
shipment yet, 600 containers, arrived in Germany to supply the US armored and combat aviation brigades,
expected to
deploy
in Europe by January 2017.
"... Prioritizing foreign over domestic policy, Jackson's former aides Richard Perle , Douglas Feith , and Elliott Abrams - along with some fellow travelers like Paul Wolfowitz - eventually shifted their allegiance to the right-wing Republican Ronald Reagan. They formed an important pro-Israel, "peace through strength" nucleus within the new president's foreign policy team. ..."
John Feffer Director, Foreign Policy
In Focus and Editor, LobeLog Much has been made of the swing in political allegiances of neoconservatives
in favor of Hillary Clinton.
As a group, Washington's neocons are generally terrified of Trump's unpredictability and his flirtation
with the alt-right. They also support Clinton's more assertive foreign policy (not to mention her
closer relationship to Israel). Perhaps, too, after eight long years in the wilderness, they're daydreaming
of an appointment or two in a Clinton administration.
This group of previously staunch Republicans, who believe in using American military power to
promote democracy, build nations, and secure U.S. interests abroad, have defected in surprising numbers.
Washington Post columnist
Robert Kagan , the Wall Street Journal 's
Bret Stephens , and the
Foreign
Policy Initiative 's
James Kirchick have all endorsed Clinton. Other prominent neocons like The National Review
's William Kristol
, the Wall Street Journal 's
Max Boot , and SAIS's
Eliot Cohen have rejected
Trump but not quite taken the leap to supporting Clinton.
A not particularly large or well-defined group, neoconservatives have attracted a disproportionate
amount of attention in this election. For the Trump camp, these Republican defectors merely prove
that the elite is out to get their candidate, thus reinforcing his outsider credentials (never mind
that Trump initially
wooed neocons like Kristol).
For the left , the neocons are flocking to support a bird of their feather, at least when it
comes to foreign policy, which reflects badly on Clinton. The mainstream media, meanwhile, is attracted
to the man-bites-dog aspect of the story (news flash: members of the vast right-wing conspiracy support
Clinton!).
As we come to the end of the election campaign, which has been more a clash of personalities than
of ideologies, the neocon defections offer a much more interesting storyline. As the Republican Party
potentially coalesces around a more populist center, the neocons are the canary in the coal mine.
Their squawking suggests that the American political scene is about to suffer a cataclysm. What will
that mean for U.S. foreign policy?
A History of Defection
The neoconservative movement began within the Democratic Party. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat
from Washington State, carved out a new position in the party with his liberal domestic policies
and hardline Cold War stance. He was a strong booster of civil rights and environmental legislation.
At the same time, he favored military build-up and a stronger relationship with Israel. He was also
dismayed with the Nixon administration's dιtente with the Soviet Union.
Prioritizing foreign over domestic policy, Jackson's former aides
Richard Perle
, Douglas Feith
, and Elliott
Abrams - along with some fellow travelers like
Paul Wolfowitz
- eventually shifted their allegiance to the right-wing Republican Ronald Reagan. They formed
an important pro-Israel, "peace through strength" nucleus within the new president's foreign policy
team.
At the end of the Reagan era, their commitment to such policies as regime change in the Middle
East, confrontation with Russia, and opposition to multilateral institutions like the United Nations
brought them into conflict with realists in the George H.W. Bush administration. So many of them
defected once again to support Bill Clinton.
Writes
Jim Lobe:
A small but not insignificant number of them, repelled by George H.W. Bush's realpolitik, and
more specifically his Middle East policy and pressure on then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to
join the Madrid peace conference after the first Gulf War, deserted the party in 1992 and publicly
endorsed Bill Clinton. Richard Schifter, Morris Amitay of the Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs, Angier Biddle Duke, Rita Freedman of the Social Democrats USA, neocon union leaders John
Joyce and Al Shanker, Penn Kemble of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, James Woolsey,
Marty Peretz of The New Republic, and Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute all
signed a much-noted ad in The New York Times in August 1992 endorsing Clinton's candidacy. Their
hopes of thus being rewarded with top positions in a Clinton administration were crushed.
The flirtation with Clinton's Democratic Party was short-lived. Woolsey, Schifter, and Kemble
received appointments in the Clinton administration, but the neocons in general were unhappy with
their limited influence, Clinton's (albeit inconsistent) multilateralism, and the administration's
reluctance to intervene militarily in Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia. Disenchantment turned to anger
and then to organizing. In 1997, many of the same people who worked for Scoop Jackson and embraced
Ronald Reagan put together
the Project for the New American Century in an effort to preserve and expand America's post-Cold
War unilateral power.
A handful of votes in Florida in 2000 and the attacks on September 11 the following year combined
to give the neocons a second chance at transforming U.S. foreign policy. Dick Cheney became perhaps
the most powerful vice president in modern American history, with Scooter Libby as his national security
adviser. Donald Rumsfeld became secretary of defense, with Paul Wolfowitz as his deputy and Feith
as head of the policy office. Elliott Abrams joined the National Security Council, and so on. Under
their guidance, George W. Bush abandoned all pretense of charting a more modest foreign policy and
went on a militarist bender.
The foreign policy disasters of the Bush era should have killed the careers of everyone involved.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of think tanks and universities that value access over intelligence
(or ethics) - and even the most incompetent and craven administration officials after leaving office
retain their contacts (and their arrogance).
Those who worry that the neocons will be rewarded for their third major defection - to Reagan,
to Bill Clinton, and now to Hillary Clinton - should probably focus elsewhere. After all, the Democratic
nominee this year doesn't have to go all the way over to the far right for advice on how to construct
a more muscular foreign policy. Plenty of mainstream think tanks - from
the Center for a New American Security on the center-right to the leftish
Center for American Progress - are offering their advice on how to "restore balance" in how the
United States relates to the world. Many of these positions - how to push back against Russia, take
a harder line against Iran, and ratchet up pressure on Assad in Syria - are not very different from
neocon talking points.
But the defections do herald a possible sea change in party alignment. And that will influence
the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy.
The Walking Dead
The Republican Party has been hemorrhaging for nearly a decade. The Tea Party dispatched many
party centrists - Jim Leach, Richard Lugar - who once could achieve a measure of bipartisanship in
Congress. The overwhelming whiteness of the party, even before the ascendance of Trump, made it very
difficult to recruit African Americans and Latinos in large numbers. And now Trump has driven away
many of the professionals who have served in past Republican administrations, including the small
clique of neoconservatives.
What remains is enough to win state and local elections in certain areas of the country. But it's
not enough to win nationally. Going forward, with the further demographic shift away from white voters,
this Republican base will get older and smaller. Moreover, on foreign policy, the Trumpistas are
leading the party in a
nationalist,
apocalyptic direction that challenges the party leadership (in emphasis if not in content).
It's enough to throw dedicated Republicans into despair. Avik Roy, who was an advisor to the presidential
campaigns of Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry,
told
This American Life :
I think the Republican Party is a lost cause. I don't think the Republican Party is capable
of fixing itself, because the people who are most passionate about voting Republican today are
the Trump voters. And what politician is going to want to throw those voters away to attract some
unknown coalition of the future?
One of his Republican compatriots, Rob Long, had this to say on the podcast about how anti-Trump
survivors who stick with the party will navigate the post-election landscape:
It'll be like The Walking Dead, right? We're going to try to come up with bands of people and
walk across the country. And let's not get ourselves killed or eaten and hook up with people we
think are not insane or horrible or in some way murderous.
Coming out of this week's elections, here's my guess of what will happen. The Republican Party
will continue to be torn apart by three factions: a dwindling number of moderates like Susan Collins
(R-ME), right-wing fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan (R-WI), and burn-the-house-down Trumpsters
like Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Foreign policy won't be much of an issue for the party because it will
be shut out of the White House for 12 years running and will focus instead on primarily domestic
questions. Perhaps the latter two categories will find a way to repair their breach; perhaps the
party will split in two; perhaps Trump supporters will engineer a hostile takeover.
The Democratic Party, meanwhile, may suffer as a result of its success. After all, how can a single
party play host to both Bernie Sanders and
Robert Kagan ?
How can the party promote both guns and butter? How can Hillary Clinton preserve Obama's diplomatic
successes - the Iran deal, the Cuba dιtente, the efforts to contain climate change - and be more
assertive militarily? Whatever unity the party managed during the elections will quickly fall apart
when it comes to governing.
In one sense, Clinton may well resurrect the neocon legacy by embracing a more or less progressive
domestic policy (which would satisfy the Sanderistas) and a more hawkish foreign policy (which would
satisfy all the foreign policy mandarins from both parties who supported her candidacy).
At the same time, a new political axis is emerging: internationalists vs. insularists, with the
former gathering together in the Democratic Party and the latter seeking shelter in a leaky Republican
Party. But this categorization conceals the tensions within each project. Internationalists include
both fans of the UN and proponents of unilateral U.S. military engagement overseas. Insularists,
who have not turned their back on the world quite as thoroughly as isolationists, include both xenophobic
nationalists and those who want to spend war dollars at home.
The trick of it for progressives is to somehow steal back the Democratic Party from the aggressive
globalists and recapture those Trump voters who are tired of supporting war and wealthy transnational
corporations. Or, perhaps in the wake of the Republican Party's collapse, progressives could create
a new party that challenges Clinton and the neocons.
One thing is for certain, however. With a highly unpopular president about to take office and
one of the major political parties on life support, the current political moment is highly unstable.
Something truly remarkable could emerge. Or voters in 2020 might face something even more monstrous
than what has haunted this election cycle.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton as senator, secretary of
state, and active partner in the Clinton Foundation has had the privilege of
influencing major players in governments across the globe.
The result of her efforts has largely been the unfettered consolidation of
autocratic power, instability (when not total collapse) in vulnerable states, and
a global jihadist movement with its own Caliphate infiltrating some of the world's
most strategic locations.
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
The above map shows the nations of the world Clinton's policies have
destabilized and, below, an explanation of why each is labeled the way it is. This
is meant to be a comprehensive list, though by no means complete: there are few
nations in which an American secretary of state has no influence whatsoever.
Emboldened Autocrats
China
As secretary of state, Clinton presided over a policy known as the "
pivot
to Asia
," meant to increase American visibility in the continent and, in
particular, bring China and the United States closer together. Clinton publicly
supported the "
one-China
policy
" China's way of imposing itself on the Republic of China (Taiwan),
Tibet, Hong Kong, and the western Xinjiang region and encouraged China to
buy up U.S. debt
.
Following her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton expressed support for
incoming president Xi Jinping in private. In a 2013 private speech now public,
thanks to the organization WikiLeaks, Clinton
said
it was "good news" that Xi was "doing much more to try to assert his
authority" than his predecessor, Hu Jintao.
Since then, Xi has declared himself the "
core
"
leader,
comparable to Mao Zedong
;
colonized
the maritime territory of six nations in the South China Sea; used
state violence
to crack down on the nation's skyrocketing Christian
population; and engaged in multiple Communist Party purges, citing unspecified "
corruption
."
Cuba
Hillary Clinton has loudly supported President Obama's policy to "normalize"
relations with Cuba, and her associates
maintain close ties
to the Washington, D.C., community that benefits from
relations with the Castro regime. President Obama's "normalization" has
triggered a boom
in violent arbitrary arrests of political dissidents and a
new wave of refugees seeking to leave the communist dictatorship before the United
States changes its mind about treating them as political refugees.
Iran
Hillary Clinton's work to embolden the Iranian Islamic dictatorship began early
in her term as secretary of state. During Clinton's tenure, the Obama
administration all but ignored the Iranian Green Revolution, a series of protests
against then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
Clinton's State Department
rejected requests for funding
from groups doing the work on the grounds of
documenting Khamenei's rampant human rights abuses against unarmed protesters.
The Obama administration's crowning achievement in securing the Shiite
Caliphate's rule came years later, of course, in the form of the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal. While the parties signed
the deal long after her departure from State, Clinton was responsible for "naming
the negotiators for the nuclear talks and approving two major U.S. concessions to
Iran in 2011 guaranteeing Iran the right to enrich uranium and agreeing to close
the IAEA's investigation of Iran's past nuclear weapons work,"
according to Fred Fleitz of the Center for Security Policy
.
Malaysia
Under Prime Minister Najib Razak, Malaysia has become a hotbed of
corruption
and,
increasingly,
radical
Islamic sentiment
. The Obama administration has, nonetheless, cozied up to
Kuala Lumpur, including
improving
its human rights ratings
to make it an eligible partner in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. Among the allies Clinton world
feared
would
challenge Clinton, the presidential candidate, on Malaysia were labor leader
Richard Trumka and George Soros.
Secretary of State Clinton approached North Korea with a policy known as "
strategic
patience
," which one expert described as "sitting back and watching while
North Korea continued to build up its nuclear weapons program." North Korea has
detonated two nuclear weapons since Clinton has been out of office, in part
emboldened by "strategic patience" and in part, many argued after the fourth of
five tests,
emboldened by the Iranian nuclear deal
.
Russia
Clinton has attempted to convince the American people that her arch-rival in
the presidential election is Russian President Vladimir Putin, but long before it
was politically expedient for her to do so, Clinton was the face of President
Obama's "Russian reset" the one that preceded the collapse of Ukraine and
bragged privately to big-money donors of her close ties to Putin. The strongman
trusted her so much, she once boasted, that he invited her to his "
inner
sanctum
."
Turkey
In her memoir,
Hard Choices
, Clinton reserved praise from President
(then-Prime Minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan that sounded not unlike her optimistic
profiling of Xi Jinping. Erdogan,
she said
, was "an ambitious, forceful, devout and effective politician." Of
his government, she said Erdogan was correct to seek "zero problems with
neighbors." WikiLeaks-released emails
have since revealed
that Erdogan sought to buy influence through campaign
donations to the Clintons.
During his tenure as president, Erdogan has advanced the cause of Islamism in
Turkey to unprecedented levels since the rule of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, going so
far as to allow Islamic prayers in the Hagia Sophia, an iconic Christian landmark.
He has also conducted
mass arrests of political enemies
and shut down numerous media outlets who
dare challenge his government
. Last Friday, Erdogan's government
arrested the leaders
of the People's Democratic Party (HDP) a pro-Kurdish,
pro-Christian center-left party in a midnight raid on dubious "terrorism"
charges.
Venezuela
Clinton served as secretary of state during the tail end of the tenure of
socialist dictator Hugo Chαvez, who died shortly after she departed. Chαvez
presided over a bleak time in Venezuelan history: nationalizing private
industries, cozying up to enabling autocrats in Cuba, Iran, and China, and using
violence to suppress anti-socialist opposition.
In 2009, Clinton defended negotiating with Chαvez and fostering diplomacy with
him, telling a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that the U.S.
should dismiss
Chαvez's ties to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and communist China
because "we've isolated him, so he's gone elsewhere. I mean, he's a very sociable
guy."
Venezuela's economy is now in free fall as dozens of prisoners of conscience
languish in prison under Chαvez's hand-picked successor, Nicolαs Maduro. Maduro's
management of his own government has been so abysmal that, with Clinton gone,
President Obama has declared Venezuela
a national security threat
.
Emboldened Corruption
Algeria
The government of Algeria is involved in one of the most egregious corruption
schemes of the Clinton Foundation: offering the Clintons a $500,000 check. "The
donation reportedly coincided with an intense effort by Algeria to lobby Mrs
Clinton's State Department over US criticism of its human rights record,"
The
Telegraph
notes
.
Brazil
Earlier this year, Brazil
impeached and ousted
its socialist President Dilma Rousseff for a variety of
fiscal improprieties, including the misrepresentation of government funds to lure
investors. Triggering protests that numbered in the millions, however, was
Rousseff's deep involvement in something known as "Operation Car Wash," a
sprawling corruption scheme in which dozens of government officials took millions
in kickbacks from projects commissioned by the state-run oil company Petrobras.
As secretary of state, Clinton had longtime ties to Rousseff and
praised
"her commitment to openness, transparency," stating that "her fight
against corruption is setting a global standard" in 2012.
Haiti
The Clinton Foundation's
exploitation
of Haiti's poverty and the damage caused by a 2010 earthquake has
left many of those nation's leaders disgusted enough to speak up about the
corruption. An operation to aid earthquake victims run by the Clintons was also
found to have "
played
a role
" in an unprecedented cholera outbreak in that country.
Kazakhstan
Among the more alarming deals Clinton cut at the State Department was the
nuclear deal that handed one-fifth of America's uranium production capacity to
Russia. While Russia usurped control of the Uranium One corporation, the Clinton
Foundations coffers filled with Russian money.
In addition to Uranium One control, the
New York Times
reports
that Russia gained control of "mines in Kazakhstan that are among the
most lucrative in the world."
Morocco
A more recent WikiLeaks reveal shows that the Clinton Foundation received a $12
million donation from the King of Morocco in exchange for Hillary Clinton's
presence at a Foundation summit. At the last minute, she
did not attend
.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has enjoyed longstanding ties to the Clinton family and
donated
at least $50 million to the Clinton Foundation. These ties persisted
even as Clinton
privately admitted
she had evidence that Saudi Arabia provided "clandestine
financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the
region."
United States
While the Clinton Foundation often served as a
laundry service for foreign donations
, Clinton fostered questionable ties with
plenty of domestic entities, as well. Clinton
has raked in millions
in donations from big business in America, donors to
which she privately promised "
open
borders
." Clinton's ties to Department of Justice officials in the wake of an
investigation into her use of an illicit private server for state business has
also raised many questions regarding cronyism and corruption within our own
country.
Jihadist Boom
Afghanistan
President Obama famously declared that the war in Afghanistan
was over
for American soldiers in 2014. The policies that led to that point
only exacerbated the damage a vacuum of American power in the nation wrought
following the announcement.
Under Clinton, the State Department
largely ignored
a sprawling corruption problem that left Afghanistan with few
resources to combat the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Clinton policies elsewhere in the
world also led to the development of an Islamic State presence in the nation.
Currently, U.S. officials
warn
that the Taliban is stronger than it has been since September 11, 2001.
Indonesia
One of Clinton's first stops as secretary of state was Indonesia, where she
proclaimed, "If you want to know whether Islam, democracy, modernity and women's
rights can co-exist, go to Indonesia."
At the time
(2009), her visit was met with chants of "Allahu akbar" and an
inauspicious shoe-throwing protest against her.
Since then, Clinton's foreign policy greatly contributed to the creation of the
Islamic State, a jihadist group
actively courting Indonesian recruits
. "Between 300 and 700 Indonesians are
believed to have joined the group in Syria and Iraq over the past two years," the
BBC reported in July, adding that 30 Indonesian groups had pledged allegiance to
Islamic State "Caliph" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Iraq
Unlike Syria, the collapse of which followed violent acts of oppression by a
ruthless tyrant, Iraq's collapse is more closely tied to American foreign policy
due to the nation's longtime occupation there. An American presence on the ground
in Iraq did more to subdue jihadist elements there than any action to routinely
fleeing Iraqi military and its corrupt leadership took.
While Clinton was in office, President Obama
withdrew
most of America's troops from Iraq, leaving a power vacuum rapidly
filled by the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and Iran-backed Shiite militias. Military
experts
have agreed
that a prolonged American presence in the country would have
contributed to stability and withdrawing left the nation vulnerable to Islamist
colonization.
Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Cameroon
The nations surrounding Lake Chad continue to struggle with the rise of Boko
Haram, a jihadist group
founded in 2002
but active throughout the 2010s in northeast Borno state,
Nigeria. Boko Haram is currently the deadliest wing of the Islamic State and
responsible for killing
an
estimated 15,000
and displacing millions. The group rose to international
prominence following the abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls from a secondary
school in the Borno region in 2014. Most of these girls remain in captivity,
"married" off to Boko Haram jihadists for use as sex slaves.
As secretary of state, Clinton
refused to designate
Boko Haram, at the time affiliated with al-Qaeda, a
Foreign Terrorist Organization. The move
severely hindered
the Nigerian government's ability to target and neutralize
the group, as they could not seek U.S. aid for the mission.
Somalia, Kenya
Clinton
traveled to Somalia
personally in 2009 t0 offer support against al-Shabaab, an
al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group. Following that visit, al-Shabaab made its
ties to al-Qaeda public and went on two high-profile rampages against civilians in
Kenya: the
Westgate Mall massacre
in 2013 and the
Garissa University attack
of 2015. It has since then become a popular enough
jihadist group to have found itself the object of courtship of both its al-Qaeda
overlords and the Islamic State.
The United States did little in those in-between years to subdue al-Shabaab,
including a "
Yemen-like
"
drone policy to target leadership and an embarrassing
failed raid
on an al-Shabaab camp in 2013. Clinton herself merely
implored the terrorists
to allow humanitarian aid.
Collapse of State
Libya
Clinton's role
in the death of Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador, in the
September 11, 2012, siege of Benghazi is now well-known. She had a major role in
pushing for the decision to support Libya's uprising against dictator Muammar
Gadhafi, as well, however a move President Obama followed up with little
strategy to ensure that a stable, secular government would replace Gadhafi. The
collapse of the Gadhafi dictatorship has left Libya a failed state, at first
governed by
two rival parties
, but now partially governed by the
Islamic State
,
al-Qaeda
, and a variety of Islamist tribal militias.
The Syrian Civil War began in 2011, during Clinton's stewardship of the State
Department. The Secretary reportedly
pushed President Obama
to arm Sunni Arab Syrian rebels, armed militias that
included a high number of jihadist elements, many of whom would move on to fight
for the Islamic State. The President
reportedly did not heed Clinton's advice
, though he failed to do much of
anything else, either.
In 2011, however, Clinton referred to dictator Bashar al-Assad as "
a
reformer
" by reputation, whose nascent rule was cause for optimism, casting
some doubt on how adamantly she pushed President Obama to arm the Syrian rebels.
Today, Syria remains a land mass governed piecemeal by the Islamic State,
Kurdish militias, al-Qaeda linked armed Sunni groups, and the
Iranian-Russian-Assad alliance. Assad
claimed in an interview
earlier this month that Syria is now "much better off"
than before the civil war.
Sudan/South Sudan
The creation of South Sudan, the world's youngest nation, was a direct product
of Clinton's foreign policy. Years of civil war in Sudan between the northern
Muslim population and the Christian south gave way to secession and a war between
two nations, not one. By the time Clinton visited in 2012,
the
Washington Post
referred to the refugee crisis there as one of
the worst in the world (soon to be eclipsed by the Syrian crisis).
The State Department persisted in aiding the South Sudanese government, even
continuing to provide funding after evidence surfaced that the government
employed
child soldiers
. Subsequent reports unveiled that Clinton-related firms
received money
from the South Sudanese government, as well.
Clinton's State Department support appears to have done little to
stabilize South Sudan. Report of
mass rape
at UN camps are common, and the country is
now facing a famine
.
Ukraine/Georgia
The Obama administration's tepid responses to Russian colonization of former
Soviet states have left Ukraine without its Crimea region and its eastern
provinces in collapse. In Georgia, the breakaway regions of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia
, invaded in 2008, remain under pseudo-Russian
control.
Hillary Clinton presided over a "Russian reset" policy meant to dissuade
Vladimir Putin from pillaging his neighbors. Clinton even gave her Russian
counterpart Sergei Lavrov a literal "reset button" as a gift,
leaving him baffled
. The reset succeeded in keeping Russia from obstructing
the negotiation of the Iran nuclear deal and the invasion of Libya
, but did
little to convince Putin to change his foreign policy.
Subsequent revelations showed the Clintons
taking money from both sides
of the Ukraine conflict and being careful of
making too tough a stand against Putin's aggression.
Yemen
As secretary of state, Clinton made the first visit as America's top diplomat
to Yemen since 1990. There, she told Ali Abdullah Saleh that
she
would support
a program to return al-Qaeda terrorists imprisoned at Guantαnamo
Bay, Cuba, to Yemen, while also acknowledging that Yemen was a hotbed of
al-Qaeda activity. Saleh is now an ally of the Iran-backed Houthi rebels, which
have launched a civil war against current President Abd Rabbo Mansur Hadi.
Al-Qaeda is possibly the most stable entity in a nation where
80 percent
of
civilians live off of humanitarian aid,
quadrupling its presence in the nation in a year
. Yemen is a failed state torn
apart by an emboldened Iran and Saudi Arabia, both major beneficiaries of the
Clinton State Department's policies.
The Migrant Crisis
Austria, Belgium, the Balkan nations, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany,
Greece, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Turkey, Sweden, the UK
The Obama administration's Syria and Libya policies (See above.), executed
while Clinton was secretary of state, have triggered a flood of
nearly five million
displaced Syrians
and
more
than one million Libyans
seeking refuge in Europe and the Middle East.
Refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan, sub-Saharan Africa, and other volatile
regions have added to the masses seeking a new home, rejected in countries like
Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia who have criticized the West for being
unwelcoming.
" An anonymous Iraqi official recently stated that front line troops "always see US helicopters
flying over the ISIL-controlled areas and dropping weapons and urgent aids for them.", Iraq, ISIS,
Mosul, Operation Inherent Resolve, Saudi Arabia, United States, Weapons,"
.,. ... ...
Iraqi militia commander Uday al-Khaddran reported the weapons after capturing former Islamic State
positions.
According to GeoPolitics Alert , the weapons are of Saudi origin, and are by no means an isolated
incident. Iraqi forces have reported Saudi and even American supplied ISIS weaponry and food shipments
since the war began. Militiamen believe the weapons are, in part, being transported by the Turkish
government.
US manufactured missiles were also allegedly retrieved from the cleared IS area's. In this case,
according to Reports Afrique , Iraqi commanders believe the weapons were
dropped to ISIS by coalition planes . Such claims, once again, have circulated throughout the
war.
In 2015, Iraqi commanders reported they'd begun shooting down coalition craft seen aiding the
group. Iraq's parliament disclosed that year that
two British planes seen aiding the enemy were shot down,
with wreckage photographed . The government of Iraq called on western leaders to claim the crash,
but no response ever came.
Commander Al-Khaddran also accuses the Turks of sending advisors to aid in IS artillery, and other
operations. Since these kinds of reports first surfaced nearly two years ago, they've been largely
disregarded. It's only recently, with Hillary Clinton's email leaks allegedly confirming Saudi Arabia
funds ISIS, that the mainstream can re-examine these reports.
Turkish special forces operatives
have been stationed outside Mosul for months now without Iraq's approval. Turkey's prime minister
was brazen in telling Iraqi's leadership to "know your place" when asked to pull troops out. American
officials, who also train Syrian rebels in Turkeythe majority of which are linked to jihadist groupsapprove
of the forces in northern Iraq. All of these operations, from rebel training to Turkish troop deployments,
have coincided with
a brutal government crackdown on Turkish media .
Clinton was emailing her campaign chairman in 2014, advocated for pressure on Saudi Arabia because
they "are providing clandestine financial and logistical support to ISIL and other radical Sunni
groups in the region." Saudi government officials,
Daily Caller reports , has donated over $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.
By Daniel
Larison James Traub gamely
tries to convince us (and himself) that Clinton's foreign policy won't be as aggressive and meddlesome
as she says it will be, but he undermines his argument when he says this:
As a senator and later secretary of state, she rarely departed from the counsel of senior military
officials. She was far more persuaded of the merits of Gen. David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal's
counterinsurgency plan for Afghanistan, which would have sent an additional 40,000 troops there,
than Obama was and maybe even more than then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates was. She rarely departed
from Gates on any significant issue. Of course, the one time she did so was on Libya, where she
advocated intervention and he did not [bold mine-DL]. On Syria, Clinton may have to choose between
her own expressed commitments and a Pentagon that is far more cautious and more inclined to see
mishap than are civilian interventionists. I wonder how Kagan-esque she will be in the White House.
Less so, perhaps, than she was as secretary of state.
In other words, when military officers recommended a larger escalation, she agreed with them,
and when Gates didn't support intervention she didn't agree. Clinton was fine with advice from the
military when it meant supporting deeper involvement, but she broke with Gates when he didn't want
to take sides in a foreign war. That isn't a picture of someone who consistently heeds military advice,
but rather someone who always opts for the more aggressive option available at the time. It doesn't
make much sense that Clinton as president would be less "Kagan-esque" than she was as a member of
Obama's Cabinet. As president, she will have considerable leeway to do as she sees fit, Congress
will be pathetically quiescent as usual, and most of the foreign policy establishment will be encouraging
her to do more in Syria and elsewhere. Clinton will be predisposed to agree with what they urge her
to do, and in the last twenty years she has never seen a military intervention that she thought was
unnecessary or too risky. Why is that suddenly going to change when she has the power of the presidency?
In virtually every modern case, a new president ends up behaving more hawkishly than expected based
on campaign rhetoric. All of the pressures and incentives in Washington push a president towards
do-somethingism, and Clinton has typically been among the least resistant to the demand to "do something"
in response to crises and conflicts, so why would we think she would become more cautious once she
is in office? I can understand why many of her supporters wish that to be the case, but it flies
in the face of all the available evidence, including most of what we know about how Washington works.
Traub makes a number of predictions at the end of his article:
She will not make dumb mistakes. She will reassure every ally who needs reassurance. She will
try to mute China's adventurism in the South China Sea without provoking a storm of nationalism.
She'll probably disappoint the neocons. She won't go out on any limbs. She won't shake the policymaking
consensus.
I don't know where this confidence in Clinton's good judgment comes from, but it seems misplaced.
I suppose it depends on what you think smart foreign policy looks like, but there is a fair amount
of evidence from Clinton's own record that she is quite capable of making dumb mistakes.
That doesn't just apply to her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq and her backing for intervention
in Libya, but could also refer to her support for sending weapons to Ukraine, her endorsement of
"no-fly" and safe zones in Syria, her preference for more sanctions on Iran while negotiations were
still taking place, and her belief that the U.S. has to bomb another country to retain its "credibility."
All of these are mistakes, and some are quite dumb.
It isn't at all reassuring to know that Clinton will "reassure every ally who needs reassurance,"
because in practice that means indulging bad behavior from reckless clients and rewarding them with
more aid and weapons. Earlier in the article, Traub seems to understand that enabling the Saudis
is a bad idea:
This last policy, which for Clinton will come under the heading of "alliance management," would
only deepen the violence and sectarian strife rending the region. She would be better advised
to tell the Saudis that the United States will reduce its support of their war effort unless they
make serious efforts toward a lasting cease-fire.
That would certainly be wiser than offering uncritical backing of their intervention, but what
is the evidence that Clinton thinks U.S. support for the war on Yemen needs to be curtailed? Yemen
has been devastated in no small part because of Obama's willingness to "reassure" the Saudis and
their allies. What other countries will be made to suffer so Clinton can keep them happy? Clinton
may disappoint neocons, but then they are disappointed by anything short of preventive war. Even
if Clinton's foreign policy isn't aggressive enough to satisfy them, it is likely to be far more
aggressive than necessary.
"... The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists, which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young girls screaming while racing down the street in flames. ..."
"... Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable level of detachment. ..."
"... They both share to an extent the dominant New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody, but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it." ..."
"... Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what they would do to employ our military power. ..."
"... She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus directed against Russia. ..."
"... Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president, recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. ..."
"... Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power vacuum that will benefit the latter. ..."
"... Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran, which has been fighting ISIS. ..."
"... One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. ..."
"... Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do. ..."
"... She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles. ..."
The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on
multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile
military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely
of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists,
which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the
rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of
Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young
girls screaming while racing down the street in flames.
Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither
of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable
level of detachment. Hillary is notorious for her assessment of the brutal killing of Libya's
Moammar Gaddafi, saying "We came, we saw, he died." They both share to an extent the dominant
New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody,
but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers,
former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi
children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it."
In the election campaign there has, in fact, been little discussion of the issue of war and peace
or even of America's place in the world, though Trump did at one point note correctly that implementation
of Hillary's suggested foreign policy could escalate into World War III. It has been my contention
that the issue of war should be more front and center in the minds of Americans when they cast their
ballots as the prospect of an armed conflict in which little is actually at stake escalating and
going nuclear could conceivably end life on this planet as we know it.
With that in mind, it is useful to consider what the two candidates have been promising. First,
Hillary, who might reasonably be designated the Establishment's war candidate though she carefully
wraps it in humanitarian "liberal interventionism." As Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton
has always viewed a foreign crisis as an opportunity to use aggressive measures to seek a resolution.
She can always be relied upon to "do something," a reflection of the neocon driven Washington foreign
policy consensus.
Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally
and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what
they would do to employ our military power.
She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus
directed against Russia. And, unfortunately, there would be little or no pushback against the
exercise of her admittedly poor instincts regarding what to do, as was demonstrated regarding Libya
and also with Benghazi. She would find little opposition in Congress and the media for an extremely
risky foreign policy, and would benefit from the Washington groupthink that prevails over the alleged
threats emanating from Russia, Iran, and China.
Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly
Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric
Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president,
recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. I think it's coming.
It's going to be maritime confrontation and if it doesn't happen immediately, I'll bet you a dollar
it's going to be happening after the presidential election, whoever is elected."
Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in
that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no
way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power
vacuum that will benefit the latter. She has also called for a no-fly zone in Syria to protect
the local population as well as the insurgent groups that the U.S. supports, some of which had been
labeled as terrorists before they were renamed by current Secretary of State John Kerry. Such a zone
would dramatically raise the prospect of armed conflict with Russia and it puts Washington in an
odd position vis-ΰ-vis what is occurring in Syria. The U.S. is not at war with the Syrian government,
which, like it or not, is under international law sovereign within its own recognized borders. Damascus
has invited the Russians in to help against the rebels and objects to any other foreign presence
on Syrian territory. In spite of all that, Washington is asserting some kind of authority to intervene
and to confront the Russians as both a humanitarian mission and as an "inherent right of self-defense."
Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which
have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran,
which has been fighting ISIS. As a Senator, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran but
she has more recently reluctantly supported the recent nuclear agreement with that country negotiated
by President Barack Obama. But she has nevertheless warned that she will monitor the situation closely
for possible violations and will otherwise pushback against activity by the Islamic Republic. As
one of her key financial supporters is Israeli Haim Saban, who has said he is a one issue guy and
that issue is Israel, she is likely to pursue aggressive policies in the Persian Gulf. She has also
promised to move America's relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a "new level" and
has repeatedly declared that her support for Israel is unconditional.
One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions
on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed
to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. Washington is not at war with either Iran or Yemen
and the Houthis are not on the State Department terrorist list but our good friends the Saudis have
been assiduously bombing them for reasons that seem obscure. Stopping ships in international waters
without any legal pretext would be considered by many an act of piracy. Morell has also called for
covertly assassinating Iranians and Russians to express our displeasure with the foreign policies
of their respective governments.
Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated
arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO,
which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views
expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional
coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy
(NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED
has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do.
After making a number of bumper-sticker claims about Russia and Putin that are either partially
true, unproven or even ridiculous, Gershman concluded that "the United States has the power to contain
and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so." It is basically a
call for the next administration to remove Putin from power-as foolish a suggestion as has ever been
seen in a leading newspaper, as it implies that the risk of nuclear war is completely acceptable
to bring about regime change in a country whose very popular, democratically elected leadership we
disapprove of. But it is nevertheless symptomatic of the kind of thinking that goes on inside the
beltway and is quite possibly a position that Hillary Clinton will embrace. She also benefits from
having the perfect implementer of such a policy in Robert Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland, her extremely
dangerous protιgι who is currently Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
and who might wind up as Secretary of State in a Clinton Administration.
Shifting to East Asia, Hillary sees the admittedly genuine threat from North Korea but her response
is focused more on China. She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to
deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with
defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure
North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think
about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles.
Trump's foreign policy is admittedly quite sketchy and he has not always been consistent. He has
been appropriately enough slammed for being simple minded in saying that he would "bomb the crap
out of ISIS," but he has also taken on the Republican establishment by specifically condemning the
George W. Bush invasion of Iraq and has more than once indicated that he is not interested in either
being the world's policeman or in new wars in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stated that he supports
NATO but it should not be construed as hostile to Russia. He would work with Putin to address concerns
over Syria and Eastern Europe. He would demand that NATO countries spend more for their own defense
and also help pay for the maintenance of U.S. bases.
Trump's controversial call to stop all Muslim immigration has been rightly condemned but it contains
a kernel of truth in that the current process for vetting new arrivals in this country is far from
transparent and apparently not very effective. The Obama Administration has not been very forthcoming
on what might be done to fix the entire immigration process but Trump is promising to shake things
up, which is overdue, though what exactly a Trump Administration would try to accomplish is far from
clear.
Continuing on the negative side, Trump, who is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders,
has relied on a mixed bag of advisors. Former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency General Michael
Flynn appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch neocon Michael Ledeen and both
are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should
be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran
in his sights. The advice of Ledeen and Flynn may have been instrumental in Trump's vehement denunciation
of the Iran nuclear agreement, which he has called a "disgrace," which he has said he would "tear
up." It is vintage dumb-think. The agreement cannot be canceled because there are five other signatories
to it and the denial of a nuclear weapons program to Tehran benefits everyone in the region, including
Israel. It is far better to have the agreement than to scrap it, if that were even possible.
Trump has said that he would be an even-handed negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians
but he has also declared that he is strongly pro-Israel and would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem,
which is a bad idea, not in America's interest, even if Netanyahu would like it. It would produce
serious blowback from the Arab world and would inspire a new wave of terrorism directed against the
U.S.
Regarding the rest of the Middle East, Trump would prefer strong leaders, i.e. autocrats, who
are friendly rather than chaotic reformers. He rejects arming rebels as in Syria because we know
little about whom we are dealing with and find that we cannot control what develops. He is against
foreign aid in principle, particularly to countries like Pakistan where the U.S. is strongly disliked.
In East Asia, Trump would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals
to deter North Korea. It is a very bad idea, a proliferation nightmare. Like Hillary, he would prefer
that China intervene in North Korea and make Kim Jong Un "step down." He would put pressure on China
to devalue its currency because it is "bilking us of billions of dollars" and would also increase
U.S. military presence in the region to limit Beijing's expansion in the South China Sea.
So there you have it as you enter the voting booth. President Obama is going around warning that
"the fate of the world is teetering" over the electoral verdict, which he intends to be a ringing
endorsement of Hillary even though the choice is not nearly that clear cut. Part of the problem with
Trump is that he has some very bad ideas mixed in with a few good ones and no one knows what he would
actually do if he were president. Unfortunately, it is all too clear what Hillary would do.
"... Islamic State(IS), the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military experience. ..."
"... These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics. ..."
"... In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by means of torture, rapine, looting and arson. ..."
"... Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western mainly US warplanes have been gingerly bombing around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces fight the Damascus regime. ..."
"... Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support for IS. ..."
"... The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications. Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly. ..."
"... Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power ..."
"... The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces. Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery ready to 'liberate' Iraq which was once part of the Ottoman Empire. ..."
As a former soldier and war correspondent who has covered 14 conflicts, I look at all the media hoopla
over tightening siege of Mosul, Iraq and shake my head. This western-organized "liberation" of Mosul
is one of the bigger pieces of political-military theater that I've seen.
Islamic State(IS),
the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as
this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious
fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military
experience.
These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their
nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little
discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics.
In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a
collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by
means of torture, rapine, looting and arson.
What has amazed me about the faux western war against ISIS is its leisurely nature, lack of ιlan,
and hesitancy. In my view, ISIS was mostly created by the US and its allies as a weapon to be used
against Syria's government just as the Afghan mujahadin were used by the US and the Saudis to overthrow
the Soviet-backed Afghan government. Israel tried the same tactics by helping create Hamas in Palestine
and Hezbullah in Lebanon. Both were cultivated to split the PLO.
ISIS is an ad hoc movement that wants to punish the West and the Saudis for the gross carnage
they have inflicted on the Arab world.
Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS
town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western mainly US warplanes have been gingerly bombing
around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces
fight the Damascus regime.
Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important
role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support
for IS.
The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't
be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders
of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications.
Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly.
Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket
batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power
The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army
and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US
combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces.
Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery
ready to 'liberate' Iraq which was once part of the Ottoman Empire.
For the US, current military operations in Syria and Iraq are the realization of an imperialist's
fondest dream: native troops led by white officers, the model of the old British Indian Raj. Washington
arms, trained, equips and financed all its native auxiliaries.
The IS is caught in a dangerous dilemma. To be a political movement, it was delighted to control
Iraq's second largest city. But as a guerilla force, it should not have holed up in an urban area
where it was highly vulnerable to concentrated air attack and being surrounded. This is what's happening
right now.
In the mostly flat Fertile Crescent with too few trees, ground forces are totally vulnerable to
air power, as the recent 1967, 1973 Israel-Arab wars and 2003 Iraq wars have shown. Dispersion and
guerilla tactics are the only hope for those that lack air cover.
IS forces would best advised to disperse across the region and continue their hit-and-run attacks.
Otherwise, they risk being destroyed. But being mostly bloody-minded young fanatics, IS may not heed
military logic and precedent in favor of making a last stand in the ruins of Mosul and Raqqa
When this happens, western leaders will compete to claim authorship of the faux crusade against
the paper tiger of ISIS.
Posted on
March 7, 2016
by
comehomeamerica
by
Joe Scarry
I think if you asked most people, they would say that (a) war is deeply
ingrained in society; and (b) society over and over again decides to engage
in war.
There is a growing discourse around point (a): people are starting
to unpack the idea that "war is deeply ingrained in society," and growing in
understanding that this is not the same as saying "war is part of human
nature."
I worry that there is less insight around point (b). At least in the
United States, I think people continue to believe that war is a societal
choice. I think this is not true.
In theory our Constitution is all about
the people
- through
Congress - maintaining control over the decision to go to war. As it stands
now, as a practical matter, that's not really what's happening.
I invite people to study the graph of historical US military spending
below. It shows that there was a time when military spending went up when
the US began to engage in a specific war, and then went back down after that
war. Later, that pattern changed.
Posted on
March 7, 2016
by
comehomeamerica
by
Joe Scarry
I think if you asked most people, they would say
that (a) war is deeply ingrained in society; and (b)
society over and over again decides to engage in
war.
There is a growing discourse around point
(a): people are starting to unpack the idea that
"war is deeply ingrained in society," and growing in
understanding that this is not the same as saying
"war is part of human nature."
I worry that there is less insight around point
(b). At least in the United States, I think people
continue to believe that war is a societal choice. I
think this is not true.
In theory our Constitution is all about
the
people
- through Congress - maintaining control
over the decision to go to war. As it stands now, as
a practical matter, that's not really what's
happening.
I invite people to study the graph of historical
US military spending below. It shows that there was
a time when military spending went up when the US
began to engage in a specific war, and then went
back down after that war. Later, that pattern
changed.
It is very interesting to consider
why
this change occurred. (Perhaps that's a topic for a
later blog post or two.)
But I think the more fundamental point is:
at
some point
US society
stopped being the
"decider" about war.
The US began to engage in
war, and more war, and more war . . . but
US
society
was no longer really making that
decision in any real way.
(Think about US military action during your
lifetime. In what ways, if any, did society at large
determine what happened?)
If we confront this reality, what might this
cause us to do differently?
(Think about US military action during your lifetime. In what ways, if
any, did society at large determine what happened?)
If we confront this reality, what might this cause us to do differently?
"... From the surprising success of the insurgent Bernie Sanders to a Donald Trump campaign that broke all the mainstream Republican Party rules and may have broken the Republican Party itself what we now understand more clearly than ever is that the American people are fed up with politics as usual. And more importantly they are fed up with the same tired old policies. ..."
"... These results should make us very optimistic about our movement, as it shows that we are rapidly approaching the "critical mass" where new ideas will triumph over the armies of the status quo. ..."
"... We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. ..."
"... We must resist those who are preaching "interventionism-lite" and calling it a real alternative. Claiming we must protect our "interests" overseas really means using the US military to benefit special interests. That is not what the military is for. We must stick to our non-interventionist guns. No more regime change. No more covert destabilization programs overseas. A solid defense budget, not an imperial military budget. US troops home now. End US military action in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on. Just come home. ..."
I have said throughout this presidential campaign that it doesn't matter much which candidate
wins. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are authoritarians and neither can be expected to roll
back the leviathan state that destroys our civil liberties at home while destroying our economy and
security with endless wars overseas. Candidates do not matter all that much, despite what the media
would have us believe. Ideas do matter, however. And regardless of which of these candidates is elected,
the battle of ideas now becomes critical.
The day after the election is our time to really focus our efforts on making the case for a peaceful
foreign policy and the prosperity it will bring. While we may not have much to cheer in Tuesday's
successful candidate, we have learned a good deal about the state of the nation from the campaigns.
From the surprising success of the insurgent Bernie Sanders to a Donald Trump campaign that broke
all the mainstream Republican Party rules and may have broken the Republican Party itself what
we now understand more clearly than ever is that the American people are fed up with politics as
usual. And more importantly they are fed up with the same tired old policies.
Last month a fascinating poll was conducted by the Center for the National Interest and the Charles
Koch Institute. A broad ranging 1,000 Americans were asked a series of questions about US foreign
policy and the 15 year "war on terror." You might think that after a decade and a half, trillions
of dollars, and thousands of lives lost, Americans might take a more positive view of this massive
effort to "rid the world of evil-doers," as then-president George W. Bush promised. But the poll
found that only 14 percent of Americans believe US foreign policy has made them more safe! More than
50 percent of those polled said the next US president should use less force overseas, and 80 percent
said the president must get authorization from Congress before taking the country to war.
These results should make us very optimistic about our movement, as it shows that we are rapidly
approaching the "critical mass" where new ideas will triumph over the armies of the status quo.
We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will
fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists
will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. But this
election and many recent polls demonstrate that their time has passed. They may not know it yet,
but their failures are too obvious and Americans are sick of paying for them.
What is to be done? We must continue to educate ourselves and others. We must resist those
who are preaching "interventionism-lite" and calling it a real alternative. Claiming we must protect
our "interests" overseas really means using the US military to benefit special interests. That is
not what the military is for. We must stick to our non-interventionist guns. No more regime change.
No more covert destabilization programs overseas. A solid defense budget, not an imperial military
budget. US troops home now. End US military action in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on.
Just come home.
Americans want change, no matter who wins. We need to be ready to provide that alternative.
The author is a neocon...
Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty was deeply unfair as it did not eliminated see based missiles, only ground based
one. It is essentially a trap Gorbachov went into.
Notable quotes:
"... On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) ..."
"... No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece. "Because they come in both nuclear and conventional variants," he wrote, "cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon." And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap of the next president. ..."
By Michael T. Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and
the author, most recently, of The Race
for What's Left . A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available
from the Media Education Foundation . Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1. Originally published
at TomDispatch
... ... ..
With passions running high on both sides in this year's election and rising fears about Donald
Trump's impulsive nature and Hillary Clinton's hawkish one, it's hardly surprising that the "nuclear
button" question has surfaced repeatedly throughout the campaign. In one of the more pointed exchanges
of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton declared that Donald Trump lacked the mental composure
for the job. "A man who can be provoked by a tweet," she
commented , "should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes." Donald Trump has reciprocated
by charging that Clinton is too prone to intervene abroad. "You're going to end up in World War III
over Syria," he told
reporters in Florida last month.
For most election observers, however, the matter of personal character and temperament has dominated
discussions of the nuclear issue, with partisans on each side insisting that the other candidate
is temperamentally unfit to exercise control over the nuclear codes. There is, however, a more important
reason to worry about whose finger will be on that button this time around: at this very moment,
for a variety of reasons, the "nuclear threshold" - the point at which some party to a "conventional"
(non-nuclear) conflict chooses to employ atomic weapons - seems to be
moving dangerously lower.
Not so long ago, it was implausible that a major nuclear power - the United States, Russia, or
China - would consider using atomic weapons in any imaginable conflict scenario. No longer. Worse
yet, this is likely to be our reality for years to come, which means that the next president will
face a world in which a nuclear decision-making point might arrive far sooner than anyone would have
thought possible just a year or two ago - with potentially catastrophic consequences for us all.
No less worrisome, the major nuclear powers (and some smaller ones) are all in the process of
acquiring new nuclear arms, which could, in theory, push that threshold lower still. These include
a variety of cruise missiles and other delivery systems capable of being used in "limited" nuclear
wars - atomic conflicts that, in theory at least, could be confined to just a single country or one
area of the world (say, Eastern Europe) and so might be even easier for decision-makers to initiate.
The next president will have to decide whether the U.S. should actually produce weapons of this type
and also what measures should be taken in response to similar decisions by Washington's likely adversaries.
Lowering the Nuclear Threshold
During the dark days of the Cold War, nuclear strategists in the United States and the Soviet
Union conjured up elaborate conflict scenarios in which military actions by the two superpowers and
their allies might lead from, say, minor skirmishing along the Iron Curtain to full-scale tank combat
to, in the end, the use of "battlefield" nuclear weapons, and then city-busting versions of the same
to avert defeat. In some of these scenarios, strategists hypothesized about wielding "tactical" or
battlefield weaponry - nukes powerful enough to wipe out a major tank formation, but not Paris or
Moscow - and claimed that it would be possible to contain atomic warfare at such a devastating but
still sub-apocalyptic level. (Henry Kissinger, for instance, made his reputation by preaching this
lunatic doctrine in his first book, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy .) Eventually, leaders
on both sides concluded that the only feasible role for their atomic arsenals was to act as deterrents
to the use of such weaponry by the other side. This was, of course, the concept of "
mutually assured
destruction ," or - in one of the most classically apt acronyms of all times: MAD. It would,
in the end, form the basis for all subsequent arms control agreements between the two superpowers.
Anxiety over the escalatory potential of tactical nuclear weapons peaked in the 1970s when the
Soviet Union began deploying the
SS-20 intermediate-range
ballistic missile (capable of striking cities in Europe, but not the U.S.) and Washington responded
with plans to deploy nuclear-armed, ground-launched cruise missiles and the
Pershing-II ballistic missile
in Europe. The announcement of such plans provoked massive antinuclear demonstrations across Europe
and the United States. On December 8, 1987, at a time when worries had been growing about how a nuclear
conflagration in Europe might trigger an all-out nuclear exchange between the superpowers, President
Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty.
That historic agreement - the first to eliminate an entire class of nuclear delivery systems -
banned the deployment of ground-based cruise or ballistic missiles with a range of 500 and
5,500 kilometers and required the destruction of all those then in existence. After the collapse
of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation inherited the USSR's treaty obligations and pledged to
uphold the INF along with other U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. In the view of most observers,
the prospect of a nuclear war between the two countries practically vanished as both sides made deep
cuts in their atomic stockpiles in accordance with already existing accords and then signed others,
including the
New START , the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010.
... ... ...
To put this in perspective, Russian leaders ardently believe that they are the victims of a
U.S.-led drive by NATO to encircle their country and diminish its international influence. They
point, in particular, to the
build-up
of NATO forces in the Baltic countries, involving the semi-permanent deployment of combat battalions
in what was once the territory of the Soviet Union, and in apparent violation of
promises made to Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not do so. As a result, Russia has been bolstering
its defenses in areas bordering Ukraine and the Baltic states, and
training its troops for a possible clash with the NATO forces stationed there.
... ... ...
On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a
new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also
known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), it is, like the Iskander-M, expected to be deployed
in both nuclear and conventional versions, leaving those on the potential receiving end unsure what
might be heading their way.
In other words, as with the Iskander-M, the intended target might assume the worst in a crisis,
leading to the early use of nuclear weapons. Put another way, such missiles make for
twitchy trigger fingers
and are likely to lead to a heightened risk of nuclear war, which, once started, might in turn
take Washington and Moscow right up the escalatory ladder to a planetary holocaust.
No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry
called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed
piece. "Because they come in both nuclear and conventional variants," he wrote, "cruise missiles
are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon." And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap
of the next president.
scanning it, it keeps referring to the obama administration's beliefs about russia, and
claims by american officials. given the hysteria about putin allegedly hacking the us election,
and the propaganda surrounding the war on terror, i'm reluctant to rely on this kind of evidence.
But even Hillary Clinton, for all her experience as secretary of state, is
likely to have a hard time grappling with the pressures and dangers that are likely to arise
in the years ahead, especially given that her inclination is to toughen U.S. policy toward
Russia.
"Even" is a little rich, given that the Clinton campaign has systematically - I hate to
use the word, but - demonized* Putin. One can regard the political class as cynically able to
turn on a dime when the election is done, but Clinton has also induced her base of "NPR
tote baggers" to buy in, and the more massive base is harder to turn. And then of course the neo-cons
have gone over to her, and they certainly know which side their bread has blood on.
So, if Clinton wins, the dominant faction of the Democrat Party is - from the leadership
through the nomenklatura to the base - committed to a "muscular" foreign policy, including a "No
Fly Zone" in Syria, where shooting down a Russian plane would be an act of war, so far as Russia
is concerned. (In the last debate, Clinton pointedly didn't answer what she would do in that eventuality.)
It is what it is. We are where we are.
NOTE * I mean, come on. Trump and Comey as Putin's agents of influence? Beyond bizarre.
UPDATE One of the salient features of the bureaucratic infighters who brought about World War
I is their utter mediocrity; see
this review of The Sleepwalkers , a diplomatic history of how World War I came out. If you
want to see real mediocrity in today's terms, read the Podesta emails.
Agreed. Klare's order of presentation creates a questionable sense of causality by talking
first about Russian tech and strategy and then about what appear to be US responses. For example,
my understanding of recent developments of low yield nuclear weapons - I'm thinking of the "dial
a bomb" - has the US once again opening up a new strategic front the Russians feel compelled to
duplicate. His discussion of the Iskander M similarly elides the question of how the Russians
think about the B52-based cruise missiles the US has had for years.
He also seems to lose track of a point he introduces by referring to Kissinger's advocacy of
the use of low yield nukes. Kissinger's book came out in 1957, and afair only the US had battlefield
nuclear missile delivery systems back in early 60s. After Kissinger gained power in the Nixon
administration, they both thought that it was useful to look rationally irrational, to set out
a logic for dangerous policies in order to make opponents fearful of a catastrophic reaction.
The Russians are likely doing the same thing. I'm sure, too, that talking of a low first use threshold
is a way to split Europe from the US.
This article on nuclear strategy makes no mention of the single most destabilizing thing
that happened in nuclear affairs in this century: the USA's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty.
How could the author make such an omission?
The biggest nuclear problem we face is that there are "serious" military and political leaders
in the USA who think that their new ABM systems will allow them to burst the shackles of assured-destruction,
and thus to actively employ escalation dominance as a foreign policy tool..
The author puts too much emphasis on anti-cities warfare at a pre-strategic level. A strike
will be more likely to be an EMP anti-infrastructure strike. In modern societies, one doesn't
need to kill people to break their resolve. Disrupting the provision of electricity, mobile, cable
and internet connection is amply enough to eliminate the appetite for overseas military adventures.
The nukes run on a dead-man switch. If one EMP's "everything", the periodic "please do not
launch today, sir"-signal will not reach the silos/submarines and missiles will launch automatically.
We can be pretty sure that the last missiles launched will be salted with some "well, fuck
you too!"-concoction to create massive fallout and maybe even some bio-weapons on top for all
those weakened immune systems (from the gamma radiation). The USSR did a lot of very high quality
research on biological weapons, obviously, everyone else has whatever they had in the 1980's.
People who ingest radioactive dust are goners sooner or later. Sooner with bio-weapons on top
of the radiation poisoning.
People, especially people "on top" who should be informed and know better, yet still think
ABM systems work effectively for any other purpose than moving billions of USD to into the pockets
of defense industry cronies, are simply deluded. Even with cooked tests, where the speed and trajectory
of the opposition missile is known to the missile defence in advance, the odds of an intercept
are low.
Why would the elites not want to win, compared to the first 70 years of the nuclear age?
They are like 70-80 years old, geriatrics already, soon diaper-cases. All thes powerful people
are in a desparate race with time to "set things right", before they lose all of their faculties
(or start smelling of poo so no-one invites them anymore).
Even more troubling, Russia has adopted a military doctrine that favors the early use
of nuclear weapons if it faces defeat in a conventional war, and NATO is considering comparable
measures in response. The nuclear threshold, in other words, is dropping rapidly.
Of course this is the exact mirror image of the US policy during the Cold War. We relied
on the threat of "theater nuclear war" to deter the huge Soviet conventional forces that NATO
had little chance of stopping with conventional forces. Of course the Germans joked that the definition
of a "theater" nuclear weapon was one that went off in Germany.
Does the Right Hold the Economy Hostage to Advance Its Militarist Agenda?
That's one way to read Tyler Cowen's New York Times column * noting that wars have often been
associated with major economic advances which carries the headline "the lack of major wars may
be hurting economic growth." Tyler lays out his central argument:
"It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American
history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear
power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager
to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed
to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military
contracting, not today's entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik
satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic
growth."
This is all quite true, but a moment's reflection may give a bit different spin to the story.
There has always been substantial support among liberals for the sort of government sponsored
research that he describes here. The opposition has largely come from the right. However the right
has been willing to go along with such spending in the context of meeting national defense needs.
Its support made these accomplishments possible.
This brings up the suggestion Paul Krugman made a while back (jokingly) that maybe we need
to convince the public that we face a threat from an attack from Mars. Krugman suggested this
as a way to prompt traditional Keynesian stimulus, but perhaps we can also use the threat to promote
an ambitious public investment agenda to bring us the next major set of technological breakthroughs.
1. Baker's peaceful spending scenario is not likely because of human nature.
2. Even if Baker's scenario happened, a given dollar will be used more efficiently in a war.
If there is a threat of losing, you have an incentive to cut waste and spend on what produces
results.
3. The United States would not exist at all if we had not conquered the territory.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.
But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....
The War Party called the Peace Party Nazis in 1941, Communists in 1951, Soviet dupes in 1961,
dirty hippies in 1971 must I go on? In 2011, those who heed George Washington's counsel to seek
"peace and harmony with all" will be called mullah-headed appeasers of Irano-fascism.
We live in an age in which one is free to view pornography that would make de Sade wince and gore
that would make Leatherface retch, yet we have less "free speech," as the Founders would have conceived
it, than ever before. The range of permissible political opinions has narrowed to encompass the rat-hair's
breadth separating Mitt Romney from Joe Lieberman, and woe betide the straggler who wanders away
from the cage.
Blame war. Blame TV. Blame the nationalization of political discourse, as regional variations
and individual peculiarities are washed away by the generic slime of poli-talk shows. Radicals-even
naοve Tea Partiers or idealistic left-wing kids-are dehumanized in ways unthinkable when America
was a free country. No one was barred from the conversation back when there was a conversation. No
dispatch ever read, "Wingnut Henry David Thoreau today issued a manifesto from his compound near
Walden Pond "
... ... ...
The squeezing out even of establishment dissent-especially since 9/11-has left us with an antiwar
movement so feeble it makes the Esperanto lobby look like the AARP. Enter the new organization Come
Home, America, its name taken from the magnificent 1972 acceptance speech delivered by George McGovern
in the last unscripted Democratic convention.
Discussed in recent issues of this magazine, Come Home, America is based on the now decidedly
radical premise that young men and women belong home, with their families and in their communities,
rather than fighting needless wars on the other side of the globe. I am a small part of what I hope
will become a chorus of patriotic dissent ringing from Main Street and Copperhead Road and Martin
Luther King Boulevard, from farm and church and coffeehouse.
Wall Street and the Pentagon greeted the onset of 2016 as a 'banner year', a glorious turning
point in the quest for malleable regimes willing to sell-off the most lucrative economic resources,
to sign off on onerous new debt to Wall Street and to grant use of their strategic military bases
to the Pentagon.
Brazil and Argentina, the most powerful and richest countries in South America and the Philippines,
Washington's most strategic military platform in Southeast Asia, were the objects of intense US political
operations in the run-up to 2016.
In each instance, Wall Street and the Pentagon secured smashing successes leading to premature
ejaculations over the 'new golden era' of financial pillage and unfettered military adventures. Unfortunately,
the early ecstasy has turned to agony: Wall Street made easy entries and even faster departures once
the 'honeymoon' gave way to reality. ; The political procurers persecuted center-left incumbents
but, were soon to have their turn facing prosecution. The political prostitutes, who had decreed
the sale of sovereignty, were replaced by nationalists who would turn the bordello back into a sovereign
nation state.
This essay outlines the rapid rise and dramatic demise of these erstwhile 'progeny' of Wall Street
and the Pentagon in Argentina and Brazil, and then reviews Washington's shock and awe as the newly
elected Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte embraced new ties with China while proclaiming, 'We
are no one's 'tuta' (puppy dog)!'
Argentina and Brazil: Grandiose Schemes and Crapulous Outcomes
The international financial press was ecstatic over the election of President Mauricio Macri in
Argentina and the appointment of former Wall Street bankers to his cabinet. They celebrated the ouster
of the 'evil populists', accusing them of inflating economic results, reneging on debt obligations
and discouraging foreign lenders and investors. Under the Macri regime all market obstacles were
to be removed and all the bankers trembled with anticipation at the 'good times' to come.
After taking office in December 2015, President Macri unleashed the 'animal instincts' of the
market and the carrion birds flocked in. US 'vulture funds' scooped up and demanded payment for on
old Argentine debt 'valued' at $3.5 billion constituting a 1,000% return on their initial investment.
A devaluation of the peso of 50% tripled inflation and drove down wages by 20%.
Firing over 200,000 public sector employees, slapping 400% price increases on utilities and transport,
driving small and medium size firms into bankruptcy and enraged consumers into the streets ended
the honeymoon with the Argentine electorate quite abruptly. This initial massive dose of free enterprise
'medicine' was prescribed by the local and Wall Street bankers and investors who had promised a new
golden era for capitalism!
Now that he had banished the 'populists', Macri was free to tap into the international financial
markets. Argentina raised $16.5 billion from a bond sale taken up by the big bankers and speculators,
mostly from Wall Street, who were eager to cash in on the high rates in the belief that there was
no risk with their champion President Macri at the helm. Wall Street based its giddy predictions
on a mere three-month experience with Mauricio!
But then some of the hedge fund managers began to raise questions about the viability of Mauricio
Macri's presidency. Instead of reducing the fiscal deficit, Macri began to increase public spending
to offset mass discontent over his triple digit increases in utility fees and transportation, the
mass layoffs in the public sector and the slashing of pension funds.
The major banks had counted on the abrupt devaluation of the currency to invest in the export
sector, but instead they were confronted with a sudden 11% appreciation of the peso and a skyrocketing
inflation of 40% leading to high interest rates. As a result, the economy fell even deeper in recession
exceeding minus 3% for the year.
While most Wall Street bankers still retain some faith in the Macri regime, they are not willing
to fork-over the kind of cash that might allow this increasingly unpopular regime to survive. What
keep Wall Street on board the sinking ship are the political and ideological commitments rather than
any objective assessment of their protιgιe's dismal economic performance. Wall Street counts on free
market bankers appointed to the ministries, the massive purge of social services (health and education)
personnel and the lucrative bond sales to cover the burgeoning deficit. They hope the vast increase
in profits resulting from increased utility fees and the sharp cuts in salaries, pensions and subsidies
will ultimately lead them into the promised land.
Wall Street has expressed dismay over Macri's failure to stimulate growth in fact GDP is falling.
Furthermore, their 'golden boy' failed to attract productive investments. Instead thousands of Argentine
small and medium businesses have 'gone under' as consumer spending tanked and extortionate tariffs
were slapped on vital public utilities and transport devastating profits. Inflation has undermined
the purchasing power of the vast majority of households. Wall Street speculators, concentrating on
fixed-rate peso denominated debt, are at risk of losing their shirts.
In other words, the administration's 'free enterprise' regime is based largely on attracting foreign
loans, plundering the national treasury, firing tens of thousands of public sector workers and slashing
spending on social services and business-friendly subsidies. Macri has yet to generate any large-scale
investment in new innovative productive sectors, which might sustain long-term growth.
Already facing growing discontent and a general strike of private and public sector workers, the
'bankers' regime' lacks the political links with the trade unions to neutralize the growing opposition.
ORDER IT NOW
To hold back the growing tidal wave of discontent, President Macri had to betray his overseas
investors by boosting fiscal spending, which has had little or no impact on the national economy.
Wall Street's hopes that President Mauricio Macri would inaugurate a 'golden era' of free market
capitalism lasted less than a year and is turning into a real fiasco. Rising foreign debt, economic
depression and class warfare ensures Macri's rapid demise.
Brazil: Wall Street's Three Month 'Whirl-Wind' Honeymoon
Most of the current elected members of the Brazilian Congress, Senate and the recently-installed
(rather than elected) President, as well as his cabinet, are in trouble: The hero, Michael Temer
and his argonauts, chosen by Wall Street to privatize the Brazilian economy and usher in another
'golden dawn' for finance capital, now all face criminal changes, arrest and long prison sentences
for money laundering, bribery, fraud, tax evasion and corruption.
In less than four months, the entire political edifice constructed to impeach the elected President
Dilma Rousseff and then de-nationalize key sectors of the economy, is shaking. So much for the financial
press's proclamation of a new era of "business friendly" policies in Brazilia.
The pundits, politicians, journalists and editors, who prematurely celebrated the appointment
of Michael Temer to the Presidency by legislative coup, now have to face a new reality. The key to
understanding the rapid collapse of the New Right project in Brazil lies in the growing 'rap sheets'
of the very same politicians who engineered the ouster of Rousseff.
Eduardo Cunha, the ex-president of the Congress in Brasilia, used his influence to ensure the
super majority of Congressional votes for the impeachment. Cunha was godfather to ensuring the appointment
of Michael Temer as interim president.
Cunha's influence and control over the Congress was based on his wide network of bribes and corruption
involving over a hundred members of congress, including the newly anointed President Temer.
Once Cunha secured the ouster of Rousseff, the Brazilian elite washed their collective hands of
the 'fixer', overwhelmed by the stench of his corruption. In September 2016, Cunha was suspended
from Congress and lost his immunity. One month later, he was arrested on over a dozen charges, including
fraud and tax evasion. It was public knowledge that Cunha had squirreled away a 'tidy nest' of over
$70 million in Swiss banks.
Cunha directed (extorted) public and private firms to finance the campaigns of many of his political
colleagues. He had intervened to secure bribes for President Temer, his foreign minister and even
the next presidential hopeful, Jose Serra. One of the most powerful representatives of the new regime,
Moreira Franco, Grand Wizard of the Privatization Program, was 'in hock' to Cunha.
As all this has come to light, Cunha has been negotiating a plea bargain with the prosecutor and
judges in return for his 'singing' a few arias. He is facing over a hundred years in jail; his wife
and daughter face trial; Eduardo Cunha is prepared to talk and finger political leaders to save his
own neck. Most knowledgeable observers and judicial experts fully expect Cunha to bring down the
Temer Administration with him and devastate the leadership of Temer's Brazilian Democratic Movement
Party, as well as ex-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso's Brazilian Social Democratic Party.
The Brazilian elite, Wall Street bankers and their mass media propagandists, who wrote and directed
the impeachment plot scenario are now discredited and bereft of political front men. Their expectations
of a new 'golden era of free market capitalism' in Brazil has turned into a political mad scramble
with every politico and corporate leader desperate to save his own skin and illicit fortune by denouncing
each other.
With the demise of the 'Brazilian takeover', Wall Street and Washington are bereft of key markets
and allies in Latin America.
The Philippines: The Duterte turn from the US to China
In April 2014, Washington 'secured' an agreement granting access to five strategic military bases
in the Philippines critical to its 'pivot to target' China. Under the outgoing President 'Noynoy'
Aquino, Jr. the Pentagon believed it had an 'iron-clad' agreement to organize the Philippines as
its satrap and military springboard throughout Southeast Asia. Washington even prodded the Aquino
government to bring its Spratly Island dispute with China before the obscure Permanent Court of Arbitration
in the Hague. Washington anticipated using the Court's 'favorable' ruling as a pretext to confront
the Chinese.
All this has changed with the June 2016 ascent to the Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte: In only four
months, all Washington's imperial designs had been swept off the table. By October 21, 2016 President
Duterte announced he would end military exercises with Washington because they threatened Philippine
sovereignty and made his country vulnerable to a military confrontation with China. He promised to
end sea patrols of disputed waters that the US uses to harass China in the South China Sea.
In advance of the Philippines President's meeting with China, he had already declared that he
would not press the Dutch-based ruling over the South China Sea island dispute against Beijing but
rely on diplomacy and compromise. During the China meeting President Duterte declared that the two
countries would engage in a constructive dialogue to resolve the Spratly Islands as well as other
outstanding issues. The 'agreement' over US access to bases in the Philippines was put in doubt as
the President declared "a separation from the US" and promised long-term, large scale economic and
investment ties with China. Undergirding the Philippines pivot to China were 13 trade and investment
agreements worth more than $20 billion, covering financing of infrastructure, transport, social projects,
tourism, industry and agriculture.
The military base agreement, signed by the notoriously servile ex-President Aquino without Congressional
approval, was review by the Philippine Supreme Court and can be revoked by the new President Duterte
by decree.
Inside of four months, the US strategy of armed encirclement and intervention against China has
been dealt a major blow. The newly emerging China-Philippines linkage strikes a fatal blow to Washington's
overtly militarist 'pivot' against China.
Conclusion
2016 opened with great fanfare: The defeat of the two major center-left governments (Argentina
and Brazil) and the advent of hard-right US-backed regimes would inaugurate a 'golden era of free
market capitalism'. This promised to usher in a prolonged period of profit and pillage by rolling
back 'populist' reforms and creating a bankers paradise. In Southeast Asia, US officials and pundits
would proclaim another 'golden era', this time of rampant militarism, encircling and provoking China
on its vital sea lanes, and operating from five strategic military bases obtained through a Philippine
Presidential decree by an unpopular and recently replaced puppet, 'Noynoy' Aquino, Jr.
These dreams of 'golden eras' lasted a few months before objective reality intruded.
By the autumn of 2016 the rightist regimes had been replaced in the Manila by a colorful ardent
nationalist, while the 'banker boys' in Brasilia faced prison, and the 'Golden Boys' of Buenos Aires
were mired in deep crisis. The notion of an easy Rightist restoration was based on several profound
misunderstandings:
The belief that the reversal of social reforms and denial of popular demands would smoothly
give way to an explosion of foreign financing and investment was shattered when private bond purchases
profited the financial sector but did not bring in large-scale productive investment. Devaluation
of the currency was followed by skyrocketing inflation, which led to fiscal deficits and the loss
of business confidence.
Washington's promotion of 'corruption investigations' started with prosecuting democratically
elected center-left politicians and ended up with the arrest of Wall Street's own protιgιs encompassing
the entire right-wing political class and decimating the 'Golden' regimes.
The belief that long-term hegemonic relations, based on client regimes in Asia, could resist
the attraction of signing trade and investment agreements with the rising Chinese mega-economy,
while sacrificing vital economic development, and relegating their masses to more stagnation and
unemployment, collapsed with the massive electoral of nationalist Rodrigo Duterte as President
of the Philippines.
In fact, these and other political assessments among the decision makers in Washington and on
Wall Street were proven wrong leading to a strategic retreat of the empire in both Latin America
and Asia. The policy failures were not merely 'mistakes' but the inevitable results of changing structural
conditions embedded in a declining empire.
These decisions were based on a calculus of power, rooted in class and national relations that
may have held true two decades ago. At the dawn of the new millennium the US still dominated Asia
and China was not yet an economic alternative for its neighbors eager for investment. Washington
could and did dictate policy in Southeast Asia.
Twenty years ago, the US had the economic leverage to sustain the neoliberal policies of the Washington
Consensus throughout Latin America.
Today the US continues to pursue policies based on anachronistic power relations, seeming to ignore
the fact that China is now a world power and a viable economic trade and investment alternative successfully
competing for markets and influence in Asia. Washington is failing to compete in that marketplace
and, therefore, can no longer rely on docile client state.
Washington cannot effectively control and direct large-scale capital flows to shore-up its newly
installed rightist regimes in Argentina and Brazil as they crumble under their own corruption and
incompetence. Meanwhile the world is watching a domestic US economy, mired in stagnation with its
own political elites torn by corruption and scandals at the highest level, and staging the most bizarre
presidential campaign in its history. Corruption has become the mode of governing under conditions
of deregulation and rule by political warlords. Political allegiance to the empire and open doors
to foreign pillage do not attract capital when those making political decisions are facing prison
and the business 'doormen' are busy stuffing their suitcases with cash and making a mad-dash for
the airports!
For Wall Street and the Pentagon, Latin America and Asia are lost opportunities betrayals to
be mourned at the officers clubs and exclusive Manhattan restaurants. For the people in mass social
movements these are emerging opportunities for struggle and change.
The strenuous US effort to rebuild its empire in Latin America and Southeast Asia has suffered
a rapid succession of blows. Washington can still seize power but it lacks the talent and the favorable
conditions to hold it.
The vision of a Brazilian state, build on the edifice of the privatized oil giant, Petrobras,
and the political incarceration of its left adversaries, with foreign capital attracted and seduced
by political procurers, pimps and prostitutes, has ended in a debacle.
In this vacuum, it will be up to the new governments and peoples' movements to seize the opportunity
to advance their struggles and explore political and economic alternatives. The aborted rightist
power grab inadvertently has done the peoples' movements a great favor by exposing and ousting the
corrupt and compromised center-left regimes opening the door for a genuine anti-imperialist transformation.
"... The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the first two, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton is secretary of state, and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... this notorious jihadist group, called ISIL or ISIS, is created largely with money from people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation? ..."
John Pilger: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis,
particularly the first two, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while
Hillary Clinton is secretary of state, and the State Department is approving massive
arms sales, particularly Saudi Arabia.
Julian Assange: Under Hillary Clinton and the Clinton emails
reveal a significant discussion of it the biggest-ever arms deal in the world was made
with Saudi Arabia: more than $80 billion. During her tenure, the total arms exports from
the US doubled in dollar value.
JP: Of course, the consequence of that is that this notorious
jihadist group, called ISIL or ISIS, is created largely with money from people who are
giving money to the Clinton Foundation?
And yes, about the only thing "liberal" about Clinton involves identity politics. But if she is
elected, all of her supporters who used identity politics based attacks to smear Bernie Sanders
and his supporters (along with a good dose of that against Trump also) are going to be in for
a very rude awakening.
How easily in particular the gay and black communities forget the administration
of Bill Clinton and what he and Hillary did.
Just as a start, Clinton ignored the identity crowd by picking somebody for VP that the identity
crowd spent the previous year smearing the Sanders campaign over: Kaine is your prototypical straight
privileged white male who has failed upwards.
And not a peep from the identity crowd especially
black leaders who more than any other group put Clinton over the top (forgetting the cheating
for a moment). One of the early Wikileak revelations was a memo to Congressional candidates how
to marginalize BLM if they were ever confronted.
If BLM acts up and damages her politically, a President Hillary will smash the leaders and
movement in the same Obama violently smashed OWS
.
She will honor her "feminist" supporters by
appointing the most violent and virulent warmongering women into positions of power so they too
can like the men can decide which black and brown women and children to bomb.
She will stab in
the back such early supporters as SEIU by refusing to support min. wage increases. And women are
disproportionately the base of min. wage workers. She supports Simpson-Bowles as revealed by Wikileaks
and the Cat Food Commission recommended cutting social security. Guess which groups that will
really hurt? Maybe the next groveling task for John Lewis will be to attack people who are against
Hillary cutting social security.
"... When Hillary was Secretary of State, she convinced Obama to authorize a covert operation in Libya (which included sending in special forces and arming terrorist groups) in preparation for a US/Nato aeronaval attack. ..."
"... Clinton's emails that subsequently came to light, prove what the real motive for war might be: blocking Gaddafi's plan to harness Libya's sovereign funds to establish independent financial organizations, located within the African Union and an African currency that could serve as an alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc. ..."
"... Immediately after razing the State of Libya, the US and Nato brought in the Gulf Monarchies and set about a covert operation to destroy the State of Syria by infiltrating it with special forces and terrorist groups that gave birth to Isis. ..."
"... "the best way to help Israel is to help the rebellion in Syria that has now lasted for more than a year" (i.e. from 2011). How? By mounting the case that the use of force is a sina qua non to make Basshar Assad fold, so as to endanger his life and that of his family". ..."
"... "wrecking Assad would not only be a huge advantage for the security of the State of Israel, but would also go a long way to reducing Israel's justifiable fear that it will lose its nuclear monopoly". ..."
From time to time, it is in the interests of the Western media and political establishment to
do a bit of "political cleansing".
Thus the West pulls out some skeleton from the closet. A British Parliamentary Committee has criticized
David Cameron for authorizing the use of force in Libya when he was Prime Minister in 2011. However
the basis for criticism was not the war of aggression per se (even though it erased from the map
a sovereign state) but rather the fact that war was entered into without an adequate "intelligence"
foundation and also because there was no plan for "reconstruction" [
1 ].
The same mistake was made by President Obama: thus he declared last April that Libya was his "biggest
regret", not because he used US-led Nato forces to reduce it to smithereens but because he had failed
to plan for "the day after". At the same time, Obama has confirmed his support for Hillary Clinton
who is now running for president. When Hillary was Secretary of State, she convinced Obama to authorize
a covert operation in Libya (which included sending in special forces and arming terrorist groups)
in preparation for a US/Nato aeronaval attack.
Clinton's emails that subsequently came to light, prove what the real motive for war might be:
blocking Gaddafi's plan to harness Libya's sovereign funds to establish independent financial organizations,
located within the African Union and an African currency that could serve as an alternative to the
dollar and the CFA franc.
Immediately after razing the State of Libya, the US and Nato brought in the Gulf Monarchies and
set about a covert operation to destroy the State of Syria by infiltrating it with special forces
and terrorist groups that gave birth to Isis.
An e mail from Clinton, one of the many the Department of State was compelled to de-classify following
the uproar triggered by the disclosures on Wikileaks, proves what one of the key objectives of the
operation still underway. In an e mail dated 31 December 2012, declassified as "case no: F 2014
20439, Doc No. CO5794998", Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, wrote [
2 ]:
"It is Iran's strategic relationship with the Bashar Assad regime that allows Iran to threaten Israel's
security not through a direct attack but through its allies in Lebanon such as the Hezbollah."
She then emphasizes that:
"the best way to help Israel is to help the rebellion in Syria that has now lasted for more than
a year" (i.e. from 2011). How? By mounting the case that the use of force is a sina qua non to make
Basshar Assad fold, so as to endanger his life and that of his family".
And Clinton concludes:
"wrecking Assad would not only be a huge advantage for the security of the State of Israel, but would
also go a long way to reducing Israel's justifiable fear that it will lose its nuclear monopoly".
So, the former Secretary of State admits what officially is not said. That Israel is the only
country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons [
3 ].
The support given by the Obama Administration to Israel over and above some disagreements (more
formal than substantive) is confirmed by the agreement signed on 14 September at Washington under
which the United States agrees to supply Israel over a ten year period with weapons of the latest
design for a value of 38 billion dollars through an annual financing of 3.3 billion dollars plus
half a million for "missile defense".
In the meantime, after the Russian intervention scuppered the plan to engage in war to demolish
Syria from within, the US obtains a "truce" (which it immediately violated), launching at the same
time a fresh attack in Libya, in the sheepskin of humanitarian operations that Italy participates
in with its "para-medics".
Meanwhile Israel, lurking in the background, strengthens its nuclear monopoly so precious to Clinton.
"... Let's hope that Mr. Assange is saving the best for last, and delivers the coup de grace to the warmongering sociopathic harpy and she melts down like the wicked witch of the west. ..."
"... Either way, methinks that a great mass of unwashed deplorables may just rise up and sweep the authoritarian orange barbarian into power. ..."
The stench of desperation and corruption is surrounding the Dems like the piles of rotting
corpses Obama and Clinton have stacked up in Libya and Syria.
Let's hope that Mr. Assange is saving the best for last, and delivers the coup de grace
to the warmongering
sociopathic harpy and she melts down like the wicked witch of the west.
Either way, methinks that a great mass of unwashed deplorables may just rise up and sweep
the
authoritarian orange
barbarian into power.
Which is why I'm stocking up on ribeyes, scotch, and ammo for next week. Should Trump prevail,
I give better than even odds that the leftist chimps will, literally, go
berserk .
"... The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country. ..."
"... After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience. ..."
"... "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam." ..."
The roster of retired military officers endorsing
Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American
surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied
forces battling the Taliban in
Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own
country.
But as Election Day approaches, many veterans are instead turning to
Donald
J. Trump , a businessman who avoided the Vietnam draft and has boasted of gathering foreign policy
wisdom by watching television shows.
Even as other voters abandon Mr. Trump, veterans remain among his most loyal supporters, an unlikely
connection forged by the widening gulf they feel from other Americans.
After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but
exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated
by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience.
Perhaps most strikingly, they welcome Mr. Trump's blunt attacks on America's entanglements overseas.
"When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq
and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours
in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam."
In small military towns in California and North Carolina, veterans of all eras cheer Mr. Trump's
promises to fire officials at the
Department of Veterans Affairs . His attacks on political correctness evoke their frustrations
with tortured rules of engagement crafted to serve political, not military, ends. In Mr. Trump's
forceful assertion of strength, they find a balm for wounds that left them broken and torn.
"He calls it out," said Joshua Macias, a former Navy petty officer and fifth-generation veteran
who lives in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where he organized a "Veterans for Trump" group last
year. "We have intense emotion connected to these wars. The way it was politicized, the way they
changed the way we fight in a war setting - it's horrible how they did that."
In ''A Burden Too Heavy to Put Down,'' * David Brooks
writes, ''Inevitably, there will be atrocities'' committed by
our forces in Iraq. Did he forget to add that they must be
prosecuted?
War crimes are indeed more likely if influential
commentators foreshadow impunity for perpetrators of the
''brutal measures our own troops will have to adopt.''
The choice is not between committing war crimes and
retreating ''into the paradise of our own innocence.'' A
third option is for the United States to strive to avoid
complicity.
It is untrue that ''we have to take morally hazardous
action.'' Those who choose it, or urge others to, cannot
evade or distribute responsibility by asserting that ''we
live in a fallen world.''
If HRC wins, we have war with Russia, including possibly WW3. That makes environmental issues
moot.
Separately, HRC will not even agree to a carbon tax, she lobbied for two giant polluting coal
plants in South Africa, and she promotes fracking worldwide.
"... The military-industrial complex is alive and well, and it's gobbling up your tax dollars. Through good times and bad, regardless of what's actually happening in the world, one thing is certain: In the long run, the Pentagon budget won't go down. ..."
"... Pillar one supporting that edifice: ideology. As long as most Americans accept the notion that it is the God-given mission and right of the United States to go anywhere on the planet and do more or less anything it cares to do with its military, you won't see Pentagon spending brought under real control. Think of this as the military corollary to American exceptionalism-or just call it the doctrine of armed exceptionalism, if you will. ..."
"... The second pillar supporting lavish military budgets (and this will hardly surprise you): the entrenched power of the arms lobby and its allies in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. The strategic placement of arms production facilities and military bases in key states and Congressional districts has created an economic dependency that has saved many a flawed weapons system from being unceremoniously dumped in the trash bin of history. ..."
"... Take as an example the M-1 tank, which the Army actually wanted to stop buying. Its plans were thwarted by the Ohio congressional delegation, which led a fight to add more M-1s to the budget in order to keep the General Dynamics production line in Lima, Ohio, up and running. In a similar fashion, prodded by the Missouri delegation, Congress added two different versions of Boeing's F-18 aircraft to the budget to keep funds flowing to that company's St. Louis area plant. ..."
"... The one-two punch of an environment in which the military can do no wrong, while being outfitted for every global task imaginable, and what former Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney has called " political engineering ," has been a tough combination to beat. ..."
"... The overwhelming consensus in favor of a "cover the globe" military strategy has been broken from time to time by popular resistance to the idea of using war as a central tool of foreign policy. In such periods, getting Americans behind a program of feeding the military machine massive sums of money has generally required a heavy dose of fear. ..."
"... As Wayne Biddle has noted in his seminal book Barons of the Sky , the US aerospace industry produced an astonishing 300,000-plus military aircraft during World War II. Not surprisingly, major weapons producers struggled to survive in a peacetime environment in which government demand for their products threatened to be a tiny fraction of wartime levels. ..."
"... With the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Washington decisively renewed its practice of responding to perceived foreign threats with large-scale military interventions. That quick victory over Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein's forces in Kuwait was celebrated by many hawks as the end of the Vietnam-induced malaise. Amid victory parades and celebrations, President George H.W. Bush would enthusiastically exclaim : "And, by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all." ..."
"... In reality, he underestimated the Pentagon's ability to conjure up new threats. Military spending did indeed drop at the end of the Cold War, but the Pentagon helped staunch the bleeding relatively quickly before a "peace dividend" could be delivered to the American people. Instead, it put a firm floor under the fall by announcing what came to be known as the "rogue state" doctrine . ..."
"... Take Lockheed Martin Vice President Bruce Jackson, for example. In 1997, he became a director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and so part of a gaggle of hawks including future Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and future Vice President Dick Cheney. In those years, PNAC would advocate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as part of its project to turn the planet into an American military protectorate. ..."
"... The Afghan and Iraq wars would prove an absolute bonanza for contractors as the Pentagon budget soared. Traditional weapons suppliers like Lockheed Martin and Boeing prospered, as did private contractors like Dick Cheney's former employer , Halliburton, which made billions providing logistical support to US troops in the field. ..."
"... Recent terror attacks against Western targets from Brussels, Paris, and Nice to San Bernardino and Orlando have offered the national security state and the Obama administration the necessary fear factor that makes the case for higher Pentagon spending so palatable. This has been true despite the fact that more tanks, bombers , aircraft carriers , and nuclear weapons will be useless in preventing such attacks. ..."
The military-industrial complex is alive and well, and it's gobbling up your tax dollars.
Through good times and bad, regardless of what's actually happening in the world, one thing is
certain: In the long run, the Pentagon budget won't go down.
It's not that that budget has never been reduced. At pivotal moments, like the end of World War
II as well as war's end in Korea and Vietnam, there were indeed temporary downturns, as there was
after the Cold War ended. More recently, the
Budget Control Act of 2011
threw a monkey wrench into the Pentagon's plans for funding that would go ever onward and upward
by putting a cap on the money Congress could pony up for it. The remarkable thing, though, is not
that such moments have occurred, but how modest and short-lived they've proved to be.
Take the current budget. It's down slightly from its peak in 2011, when it reached the highest
level since World War II, but this year's budget for the Pentagon and related agencies is nothing
to sneeze at. It comes in at roughly
$600 billion -
more
than the peak year of the massive arms build-up initiated by President Ronald Reagan back in
the 1980s. To put this figure in perspective: Despite troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan dropping
sharply over the past eight years, the Obama administration has still managed to
spend
more on the Pentagon than the Bush administration did during its two terms in office.
What accounts for the Department of Defense's ability to keep a stranglehold on your tax dollars
year after endless year?
Pillar one supporting that edifice: ideology. As long as most Americans accept the
notion that it is the God-given
mission and right of the United States to go anywhere on the planet and do more or less anything
it cares to do with its military, you won't see Pentagon spending brought under real control. Think
of this as the military corollary to American exceptionalism-or just call it the doctrine of armed
exceptionalism, if you will.
The second pillar supporting lavish military budgets (and this will hardly surprise you): the
entrenched power of the arms lobby and its allies in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. The strategic
placement of arms production facilities and military bases in key states and Congressional districts
has created an economic dependency that has saved many a flawed weapons system from being unceremoniously
dumped in the trash bin of history.
Lockheed Martin, for instance, has put together a handy
map of how its troubled
F-35 fighter jet has created 125,000 jobs in 46 states. The
actual figures are, in fact, considerably lower, but the principle holds: Having subcontractors
in dozens of states makes it harder for members of Congress to consider cutting or slowing down even
a failed or failing program. Take as an example the M-1 tank, which the Army actually wanted to stop
buying. Its plans were thwarted by the Ohio congressional delegation, which led a
fight to add more M-1s to the budget in order to keep the General Dynamics production line in
Lima, Ohio, up and running. In a similar fashion, prodded by the Missouri delegation, Congress
added two different versions of Boeing's F-18 aircraft to the budget to keep funds flowing to
that company's St. Louis area plant.
The one-two punch of an environment in which the military can do no wrong, while being outfitted
for every global task imaginable, and what former Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney has called
"
political engineering ," has been a tough combination to beat.
"SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE"
The overwhelming consensus in favor of a "cover the globe" military strategy has been broken from
time to time by popular resistance to the idea of using war as a central tool of foreign policy.
In such periods, getting Americans behind a program of feeding the military machine massive sums
of money has generally required a heavy dose of fear.
For example, the last thing most Americans wanted after the devastation and hardship unleashed
by World War II was to immediately put the country back on a war footing. The demobilization of millions
of soldiers and a sharp cutback in weapons spending in the immediate postwar years rocked what President
Dwight Eisenhower would later dub
the "military-industrial complex."
As Wayne Biddle has noted in his seminal book
Barons
of the Sky , the US aerospace industry
produced an astonishing 300,000-plus military aircraft during World War II. Not surprisingly,
major weapons producers struggled to survive in a peacetime environment in which government demand
for their products threatened to be a tiny fraction of wartime levels.
Lockheed President Robert Gross was terrified by the potential impact of war's end on his company's
business, as were many of his industry cohorts. "As long as I live," he
said
, "I will never forget those short, appalling weeks" of the immediate postwar period. To be clear,
Gross was appalled not by the war itself, but by the drop off in orders occasioned by its end. He
elaborated in a 1947 letter to a friend: "We had one underlying element of comfort and reassurance
during the war. We knew we'd get paid for anything we built. Now we are almost entirely on our own."
The postwar doldrums in military spending that worried him so were reversed only after the American
public had been fed a steady, fear-filled diet of anti-communism.
NSC-68 , a secret memorandum the National Security Council prepared for President Harry Truman
in April 1950, created the template for a policy based on the global "containment" of communism and
grounded in a plan to encircle the Soviet Union with US military forces, bases, and alliances. This
would, of course, prove to be a strikingly expensive proposition. The concluding paragraphs of that
memorandum underscored exactly that point,
calling for a "sustained buildup of US political, economic, and military strength [to] frustrate
the Kremlin design of a world dominated by its will."
Senator Arthur Vandenberg put the thrust of this new Cold War policy in far simpler terms when
he bluntly
advised President Truman to "scare the hell out of the American people" to win support for a
$400 million aid plan for Greece and Turkey. His suggestion would be put into effect not just for
those two countries but to generate support for what President Eisenhower would later
describe
as "a permanent arms establishment of vast proportions."
Industry leaders like Lockheed's Gross were poised to take advantage of such planning. In a draft
of a 1950 speech, he
noted , giddily enough, that "for the first time in recorded history, one country has assumed
global responsibility." Meeting that responsibility would naturally mean using air transport to deliver
"huge quantities of men, food, ammunition, tanks, gasoline, oil and thousands of other articles of
war to a number of widely separated places on the face of the earth." Lockheed, of course, stood
ready to heed the call.
The next major challenge to armed exceptionalism and to the further militarization of foreign
policy came after the disastrous Vietnam War, which drove many Americans to question the wisdom of
a policy of permanent global interventionism. That phenomenon would be
dubbed the "Vietnam syndrome" by interventionists, as if opposition to such a military policy
were a disease, not a position. Still, that "syndrome" carried considerable, if ever-decreasing,
weight for a decade and a half, despite the Pentagon's Reagan-inspired arms build-up of the 1980s.
With the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Washington decisively renewed its practice of responding to perceived
foreign threats with large-scale military interventions. That quick victory over Iraqi autocrat Saddam
Hussein's forces in Kuwait was
celebrated by many hawks as the end of the Vietnam-induced malaise. Amid
victory parades and celebrations,
President George H.W. Bush would enthusiastically
exclaim : "And, by God,
we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all."
However, perhaps the biggest threat since World War II to an "arms establishment of vast proportions"
came with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, also in 1991. How to mainline
fear into the American public and justify Cold War levels of spending when that other superpower,
the Soviet Union, the primary threat of the previous nearly half-a-century, had just evaporated and
there was next to nothing threatening on the horizon? General Colin Powell, then chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, summed up the fears of that moment within the military and the arms complex
when he
said , "I'm running out of demons. I'm running out of villains. I'm down to Castro and Kim Il-sung."
In reality, he underestimated the Pentagon's ability to conjure up new threats. Military spending
did indeed drop at the end of the Cold War, but the Pentagon helped staunch the bleeding relatively
quickly before a "peace dividend" could be delivered to the American people. Instead, it put a firm
floor under the fall by announcing what came to be known as the
"rogue state"
doctrine . Resources formerly aimed at the Soviet Union would now be focused on "regional hegemons"
like Iraq and North Korea.
FEAR, GREED, AND HUBRIS WIN THE DAY
After the 9/11 attacks, the rogue state doctrine morphed into the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT),
which neoconservative pundits soon labeled "
World War IV ." The
heightened fear campaign that went with it, in turn, helped sow the seeds for the 2003 invasion of
Iraq, which was promoted by
visions of mushroom clouds rising over American cities and a
drumbeat of Bush administration
claims (all false) that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda.
Some administration officials including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even
suggested that Saddam was like Hitler, as if a modest-sized Middle Eastern state could somehow
muster the resources to conquer the globe.
The administration's propaganda campaign would be supplemented by the work of right-wing corporate-funded
think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. And no one should
be surprised to learn that the military-industrial complex and its money, its lobbyists, and its
interests were in the middle of it all. Take Lockheed Martin Vice President Bruce Jackson, for example.
In 1997, he became a director of the Project
for the New American Century (PNAC) and so part of a gaggle of hawks including future Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and future Vice
President Dick Cheney. In those years, PNAC would advocate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as part
of its project to turn the planet into an American military protectorate. Many of its members would,
of course, enter the Bush administration in crucial roles and become architects of the GWOT and the
invasion of Iraq.
The Afghan and Iraq wars would prove an absolute
bonanza for contractors as the Pentagon budget soared. Traditional weapons suppliers like Lockheed
Martin and Boeing prospered, as did private contractors like Dick Cheney's
former employer , Halliburton, which made billions providing logistical support to US troops
in the field. Other major beneficiaries included firms like
Blackwater and
DynCorp , whose employees guarded US facilities and oil pipelines while training Afghan and Iraqi
security forces. As much as
$60 billion of the funds funneled to such contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan would be "wasted,"
but not from the point of view of companies for which waste could generate as much profit as a job
well done. So Halliburton and its cohorts weren't complaining.
On entering the Oval Office, President Obama would ditch the term GWOT in favor of "countering
violent extremism"-and then essentially settle for a no-name global war. He would shift gears from
a strategy focused on large numbers of "boots on the ground" to an emphasis on
drone strikes , the use of
Special Operations forces , and
massive
transfers of arms to US allies like Saudi Arabia. In the context of an increasingly militarized
foreign policy, one might call Obama's approach "politically sustainable warfare," since it involved
fewer (American) casualties and lower costs than Bush-style warfare, which peaked in Iraq at more
than 160,000 troops and a comparable number of private contractors.
Recent terror attacks against Western targets from Brussels, Paris, and Nice to San Bernardino
and Orlando have offered the national security state and the Obama administration the necessary fear
factor that makes the case for higher Pentagon spending so palatable. This has been true despite
the fact that more tanks, bombers ,
aircraft carriers
, and
nuclear
weapons will be useless in preventing such attacks.
The majority of what the Pentagon spends, of course, has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.
But whatever it has or hasn't been called, the war against terror has proven to be a cash cow for
the Pentagon and contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.
The "war budget"-money meant for the Pentagon but not included in its regular budget-has been
used to add on tens of billions of dollars more. It has proven to be an effective "
slush fund " for weapons and activities that have nothing to do with immediate war fighting and
has been the Pentagon's preferred method for evading the caps on its budget imposed by the Budget
Control Act. A Pentagon spokesman admitted as much recently by
acknowledging that more than half of the $58.8 billion war budget is being used to pay for non-war
costs.
The abuse of the war budget leaves ample room in the Pentagon's main budget for items like the
overpriced, underperforming F-35 combat aircraft, a plane that, at a
price tag of $1.4 trillion over its lifetime, is on track to be the most expensive weapons program
ever undertaken. That slush fund is also enabling the Pentagon to spend billions of dollars in seed
money as a down payment on the department's proposed
$1 trillion
plan to buy a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, missiles, and submarines. Shutting it
down could force the Pentagon to do what it likes least: live within an actual budget rather continuing
to push its top line ever upward.
Although rarely discussed due to the focus on Donald Trump's abominable behavior and racist rhetoric,
both candidates for president are in favor of increasing Pentagon spending. Trump's "
plan " (if one can call it that) hews closely to a blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation
that, if implemented, could increase Pentagon spending by a cumulative $900 billion over the next
decade. The size of a
Clinton buildup is less clear, but she has also pledged to work toward lifting the caps on the
Pentagon's regular budget. If that were done and the war fund continued to be stuffed with non-war-related
items, one thing is certain: The Pentagon and its contractors will be sitting pretty.
As long as fear, greed, and hubris are the dominant factors driving Pentagon spending, no matter
who is in the White House, substantial and enduring budget reductions are essentially inconceivable.
A wasteful practice may be eliminated here or an unnecessary weapons system cut there, but more
fundamental change would require taking on the fear factor, the doctrine of armed exceptionalism,
and the way the military-industrial complex is embedded in Washington.
Only such a culture shift would allow for a clear-eyed assessment of what constitutes "defense"
and how much money would be needed to provide it. Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex
that Eisenhower warned Americans about more than 50 years ago is alive and well, and gobbling up
your tax dollars at an alarming rate.
The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each
of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi
was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.
The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded
the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was
prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.
As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected
an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.
From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics
the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.
Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible
for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence,
or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."
The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars'
worth of arms is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half
the children are malnourished.
"... HEDGES: Well what feeds the hatred toward the west has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It has to do with the one-thousand-pound iron fragmentation bombs and cruise missiles and 155 artillery shells that are being dropped all over areas that ISIS controls. ..."
"... That is a far more potent engine of rage than anything Trump says and I think sometimes we forget what we' re doing and the state terror that is delivered day in and day out on Muslims in areas that have been opened up by these failed states because of our military adventurism in countries like Libya and Iraq. ..."
"... : Chris the recently released WikiLeaks indicate that Hillary Clinton is involved in conspiring in maintaining Israels nuclear dominance in the region and containing Irans nuclear development program. ..."
"... Yea, I mean shes quite upfront. I have to give her credit on that in terms of her militantly pro-Israel stance. She of course has courted quite successfully wealthy pro-Israeli donors attacking the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. ..."
"... So one of the dangers of Clinton and shes called for a no fly zone over Syria. Well, people forget that when you institute a no fly zone, that is patrolled and that requires very heavy presence of US forces. ..."
HEDGES: Well what feeds the hatred toward the west has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It
has to do with the one-thousand-pound iron fragmentation bombs and cruise missiles and 155 artillery
shells that are being dropped all over areas that ISIS controls.
That is a far more potent engine of rage than anything Trump says and I think sometimes we
forget what we' re doing and the state terror that is delivered day in and day out on Muslims in areas
that have been opened up by these failed states because of our military adventurism in countries
like Libya and Iraq.
PERIES: So connect those two for us. Give us some examples of how the war on terror in the Middle
East, Syria in particular, is causing this kind of islamophobia here and our hesitancy about doing
humanitarian work by accepting refugees that are fleeing these wars and how it manifests itself in
the form of islamophobia here.
HEDGES: Well, islamophobia here is a doctrine that plays quite conveniently into the goals of
the corporate state in the same way that anti-communism once played into the goals of our capitalist
democracy. So the caricature of threats from the Muslim world independent of the actual possibility
of those threats has especially since 9/11, one of the corner stones of the argument that has been
used by the security and surveillance state to strip us of basic civil liberties, including for instance,
under the Obama administration, misinterpreting the 2001 authorization to use military force act
as giving the executive branch to right to assassinate American citizens. Of course I'm talking about
Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son.
So the rise of islamophobia has been largely independent of anything Muslims have done other than
perhaps initially the attacks of 9/11. The continued over 15 years of indiscriminate violence, industrial
violence, delivered on whole swaps of the Muslim world has stirred up the kind of hornet' s nest that
we' re seeing enraged not only among Muslims in the Muslim world but Muslims in Europe and many other
parts of the globe who despite Clinton' s rhetoric see this as a war against Muslims. I think that
although she speaks in kind of a softer and more tolerate tone, Clinton has been one of the main
architects of the attacks for instance in Libya that have given or empowered or given rise to groups
like ISIS. While Clinton' s rhetoric is certainly more palatable, she has been an enthusiastic supporter
that we are going to bomb our way into peace in the Muslim world.
PERIES: Chris give us a sense of the climate created by what both candidates eluded to that Muslims
in this country has to help us in terms of identifying potential terrorists and any kind of activities
in the community that might feed terrorists attacks here. What does this do to a society?
HEDGES: Well it turns us into a society of informers. I think we have to acknowledge how pervasive
the harassment is of Muslim Americans when they go through the airport, intrusive invasions of their
privacy by Homeland Security, the FBI, and others. We have to acknowledge that almost all of the
homegrown terrorist attacks that the FBI have broken have been orchestrated by the FBI usually with
people of marginal means and sometimes marginal intelligence being prodded and often provided supposed
equipment to carry out terrorist attacks. The racial profiling that has gone on coupled with the
rhetoric and this is very dangerous because if you take already an alienated youth and subject it
to this kind of unrelenting harassment, then you provide a recipe for homegrown radicalism.
So yes it' s once again an effort in this case on part of the Trump rhetoric to blame the Muslims
for not only their own victimhood but for terrorist attacks that are being driven by jihadist whom
the vast majority, 99 plus percent of the Muslim world has no contact with and probably very little
empathy for, I mean there' s 4 to 5 million Muslims, I think I have that right, in the United States.
Most of them have integrated quite successfully into American. Unlike in Britain because Muslim immigrants
in the United States whereas in Europe, France, they came over as laborers, we largely absorbed Muslim
professional classes, doctors, engineers, and others and the Muslim community in the United States
is pretty solidly middle class and professional.
... ... ...
PERIES: Chris the recently released WikiLeaks indicate that Hillary Clinton
is involved in conspiring in maintaining Israels nuclear dominance in the region and containing
Irans nuclear development program. Your comments on those WikiLeaks.
HEDGES:Yea, I mean shes quite upfront. I have to give her credit on that in terms of
her militantly pro-Israel stance. She of course has courted quite successfully wealthy
pro-Israeli donors attacking the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. And she has and will
continue what are considered Israeli interests in the region which are not our interest. Israel
pushed very heavily for an invasion of Iraq as a way to destroy a powerful state within the
region. That did not serve our interests at all. In fact, it elevated to the dominant position
within the region, Iran and out of these vacuums gave birth to these jihadist groups and got us
embroiled in wars that we can never win.
So one of the dangers of Clinton and shes called for a no fly zone over Syria. Well, people
forget that when you institute a no fly zone, that is patrolled and that requires very heavy
presence of US forces. Not just air forces but ground stations, radar stations,
anti-aircraft missile batteries. Shes quite openly calling for a further escalation for American
involvement in the Syrian quagmire which of course again we did so much to create by along with
our allies, the Saudis and Qataris and others pumping so many arms in them. I think we gave a
billion dollars worth of arms to Syrian rebels as if you can control where those arms go, just in
the last year.
All of this loses sight of how much the framing effects have skewed this entire discussion.
Bush's signature use of military force and the defining initiative of his presidency-the invasion
of Iraq-was an unusually extreme act as measured either by past U.S. foreign policy or standards
of international conduct that the United States expects of others.
One of the many flaws in the idea that the U.S. should seek a "middle ground" between Bush and
Obama is that it treats their respective records as offering equally damaging and extreme alternatives.
Of course, the cost to the U.S. from the two presidencies is drastically different. Bush's legacy
was to launch wars that have cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, while Obama's
has been his failure to extricate the U.S. from them at a significant but much reduced cost. Obama
has certainly made some very serious and even indefensible mistakes (supporting the war on Yemen
being among the worst), but in terms of the damage done to U.S. interests the costs have been much
lower.
To believe that the U.S. needs to "moderate" between Bush's disasters and Obama's failures
is to believe that the U.S. needs a foreign policy that will be even more costly in American lives
and money than the one we have right now.
That is not only not a "moderate" position to take, but it is also a highly ideological one
that insists on the necessity of U.S. "leadership" no matter how much it costs us.
The 'middle ground" that Clinton offers is no middle ground at all, but rather represents moving
the U.S. in the direction of one of the worst foreign policy records in our history. Obama's great
foreign policy failure was that he could not or would not move the U.S. away from the disastrous
policies of the Bush era, and under Clinton there won't even be the pretense that the U.S. should
try to do this.
"... Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. ..."
"... The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies ..."
"... Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. ..."
"... A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. ..."
"Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities
of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the
need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven
considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism
Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous
restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing
broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele
beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater
part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust
and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist
governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least
- to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world.
Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies,
and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with
their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than
to people who were, at that point, on top of the world.
Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and
hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where
we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more
than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed
far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far
more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's
invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested.
This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population,
working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to
the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable
organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred
of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for
more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and
reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless.
Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce
two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists,
mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening
of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions.
The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white
heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually
the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply
rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration.
If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their
purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase
their own support.
It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing
Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration
will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have
supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy
is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed
pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government.
The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise,
in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of
a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All
this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was
identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general.
On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially
in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail,
will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And
real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full
co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment,
funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups.
As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia
among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact
that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing
great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration
chooses to take.
Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion,
are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator,
in the generally liberal Washington Post:
"Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin
Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism.
These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States.
And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs
of the rest of a meal cooked in hell."
If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be
imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times:
"The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either
with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy
stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends
don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends."
A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11
September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve
of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas
have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national
interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the
victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States -
but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall
Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and
that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US
intelligence does.
Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for
Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy
may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which
again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal
in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender
not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity:
"The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and
any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against
it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries
would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because
they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth."
Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former
executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican
Party, especially under the present Administration.
No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin
Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other
voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states
which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete
the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein.
Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president
of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented
the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy
Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this
war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate
the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign
ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism."
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace
to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf
States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent
stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into
an anti-American terrorist.
But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would
the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and
given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm
evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have
any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions,
for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of
Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the
Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government.
To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach
of relations and the ending of aid.
There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later
stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked
accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than
Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that
Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and
New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere.
Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore
be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab
world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular,
a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes
against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently,
perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame:
the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two.
This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab
world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger.
Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances
must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US
and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of
anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions
of hostility to the West.
All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing
a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly
impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the
US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism
usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This
is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict
the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance.
An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate
a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic
shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations
forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State
Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness
to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor
contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years.
The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and
security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared
tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather
certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition,
and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine
Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign
policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally
or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences
is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the
expense of overall policy.
Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually
to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence
on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals
in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely
different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people
totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation
by advisers, ministers and cliques.
In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats
- real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims.
With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine,
to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little
reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle.
The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as
just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal
and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of
the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does,
it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater
dangers for the world.
The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold
War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate
the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty
states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s,
this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily
high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions
of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we
now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives.
The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with
China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified.
Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed
by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough
in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a
free-thinker than many of his staff).
The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration
(however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially
ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension
of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity,
thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests,
was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September,
the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system,
and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the
ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus
at least.
How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general
conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority
of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware
that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle,
socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush
team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's
policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s -
was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like
Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in
Europe and East Asia.
The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and
Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer
to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt)
than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated
Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial
complex' came from Eisenhower.
Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of
the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy,
for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment
of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if
we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran.
In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge
by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out
of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between
Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the
inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions
continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly,
the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US
in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just
in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered
regimes co-opted as local American clients.
The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what
we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated
a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the
end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them.
There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of
them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity.
However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the
Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate
to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe
were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging
them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly
- as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford
to do fifty years ago.
This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans
- as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military
presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican
America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue
to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently.
'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship
could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental
issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism.
· Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington
DC.
"... A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. ..."
"... The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. ..."
"... The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems. ..."
"... Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. ..."
"... And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'. ..."
"... The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. ..."
"... To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension. ..."
"... They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. ..."
"... Red Storm Rising ..."
"... Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus. ..."
"... Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society. ..."
"... British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America. ..."
"... As Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. ..."
"... Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so. ..."
"... The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy. ..."
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by
Andrew Bacevich
Oxford, 270 pp, £16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4
A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the
Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore
eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich
points out in one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United
States itself is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:
at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The skepticism about arms
and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment
from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured
with military might.
The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued
in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.
The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest,
in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser,
that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and
the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American
variant is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and
widely differing motives:
The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little
in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military
officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence
at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed
by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of
a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors
of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent
answer to any number of problems.
Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring
American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary
success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US.
And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and
what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.
The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global
military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage
also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on weapons
systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and
congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in
the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign
nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.
That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict
which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and
no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections
of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before
the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah,
and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.
To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the
Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism
embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless
validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest
of the world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because
they are spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed
American noses in the horrors of war has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as
waged by the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry,
painlessly victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania
in militarist quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal an armchair commentator,
not a frontline journalist declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin
Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted
to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic
establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically
unlimited.'
Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism.
Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:
In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with
heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans
have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's
uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats.
The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological
aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to
enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans
are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly
competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.'
Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated
that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.
Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess.
They reflect a belief genuine or assumed in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum:
the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly
or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy
civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign
affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people.
They are so much better than the country they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister
pedigree in modern history.
In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see
his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency and gain the support of leading
liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the
19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength
of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed
military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have
regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet',
but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld
and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls
Clemenceau and Churchill or Hitler and Stalin.
Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring
contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and
the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many
American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich
brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous
with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point
of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to
Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.
Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is
a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals
in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratization has had a disastrous effect on the
party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic
language of 'freedom' supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies
in the US has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand,
the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain
limits on American imperialism weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the
US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik.
This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov
tyranny in Uzbekistan.
The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much
of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans elites and masses
alike to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration
for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed
services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich
notes,
having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude,
Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits.
His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so
briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing
has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique,
reassuring encounter with an alien world.
Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to
serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves
in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.
This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course
new. It characterized most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today,
the overwhelming rejection of conscription until 1916 meant that, appearances to the contrary,
British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority,
small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries
in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North
America.
Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying
overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As
Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it
cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population
as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is
coming to seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.
In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where
it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration
of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians
are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack
on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire
several steps closer. Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering
citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service something that the amazing Boot
approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years
to do so.
Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from
empire and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking
now dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short
of revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.
They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force,
except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress
of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent
years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a
decision that the military should focus on the defense of the nation, not the projection of US power.
As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests
pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century
the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets it is an index of
the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.
This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity
of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were
profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter
stages long after an odor of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is dedicated
to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.
Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the
outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military.
For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible
Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American
soldier's true and honorable calling'.
In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic
conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and
still situates himself culturally on the right:
As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the
Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable
one But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush
administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering
foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound
moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.
On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical
left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives,
who define the problem The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical,
but they produce nearly identical results.
Bacevich, in other words, is skeptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration
with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances
are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.
Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in
which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who
have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers
that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never
before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed
military that has characterized the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers
in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if
the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of
its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on
the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and
values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American
society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the
start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.
Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a
revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that
wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defense of the country.
The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents,
and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened
the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative.
It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture.
The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats
facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed
by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military
ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.
In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting
moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz another
warmonger who has never served himself mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had
died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration
had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly,
unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this
says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused
strategy.
Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania,
soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to
curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited,
rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the
Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed
the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.
"... The United States is already the most militaristic country in recent history and the danger is that during Hillary Clinton administration it might become even more militaristic. ..."
"... Even in this slightly more academic then usual forum we have dozen or so of open jingoistic crazies who are so brainwashed that dutifully reproduce the worst excesses of the neocon/neoliberal propaganda about Russia and evil Putin regime. And do not care one bit about the real strategic interests on the US and its population, which are somewhat different from interests of weapon manufactures, transnational corporations and financial oligarchy. ..."
"... And this traditional since the collapse of the USSR for American "helecentric" view on foreign policy, when the USA is the center of the world order and other states just rotate around it on various orbits, is very difficult to discard. The US population is by-and-large-completely brainwashed into this vision. ..."
"... The De Facto US/Al Qaeda Alliance: Buried deep inside Saturday's New York Times was a grudging acknowledgement that the U.S.-armed "moderate" rebels in Syria are using their U.S. firepower to back an Al Qaeda offensive. ..."
"... Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war. ..."
"... For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family ..."
"... The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.") ..."
The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global
military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage
also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on
weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group
of senators and congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve
wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion
that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level
of international tension.
Russia was chosen by neocons for the role of scapegoat as it does want to become a vassal country
and represents an obstacle on establishing the US world hegemony by being the nuclear armed state.
Even in this slightly more academic then usual forum we have dozen or so of open jingoistic
crazies who are so brainwashed that dutifully reproduce the worst excesses of the neocon/neoliberal
propaganda about Russia and evil Putin regime. And do not care one bit about the real strategic
interests on the US and its population, which are somewhat different from interests of weapon
manufactures, transnational corporations and financial oligarchy.
Hillary worldview includes messianism of Southern Baptist variety, a flavor of American nationalism
based on quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of the USA [pseudo]democratic
system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world.
So her election meads continued megalomania in militarist quarters while the infrastructure
crumbles under the growing costs on maintaining the global neoliberal empire ruled by the USA.
And this traditional since the collapse of the USSR for American "helecentric" view on
foreign policy, when the USA is the center of the world order and other states just rotate around
it on various orbits, is very difficult to discard. The US population is by-and-large-completely
brainwashed into this vision.
Opposition to the US militarism is almost non-existent due contemporary US popular culture
infused with the language of militarism and American exceptionalism. As Bacevich on noted:
In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash
with heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans
have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's
uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats.
The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological
aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter
a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans are
paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly
competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.'
Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated that
nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.
So while the election of Trump is a very dangerous experiment with its own considerable risks,
especially on domestic front, the election of Hillary would be a tragedy.
The De Facto US/Al Qaeda Alliance: Buried deep inside Saturday's New York Times was
a grudging acknowledgement that the U.S.-armed "moderate" rebels in Syria are using their U.S.
firepower to back an Al Qaeda offensive.
By Robert Parry
A curious aspect of the Syrian conflict a rebellion sponsored largely by the United States
and its Gulf state allies is the disappearance in much of the American mainstream news media
of references to the prominent role played by Al Qaeda in seeking to overthrow the secular
Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.
There's much said in the U.S. press about ISIS, the former "Al Qaeda in Iraq" which splintered
off several years ago, but Al Qaeda's central role in commanding Syria's "moderate" rebels
in Aleppo and elsewhere is the almost unspoken reality of the Syrian war. Even in the U.S.
presidential debates, the arguing between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton
has been almost exclusively about ISIS, not Al Qaeda.
Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15
years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist
group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the
preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war.
For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating
primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the
barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed
as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families
peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family.
The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of
wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has
come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents.
(There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake
war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.")
Rare Glimpse of Truth
Yet, occasionally, the reality of Al Qaeda's importance in the rebellion breaks through,
even in the mainstream U.S. media, although usually downplayed and deep inside the news pages,
such as the article * in Saturday's New York Times by Hwaida Saad and Anne Barnard describing
a rebel offensive in Aleppo. It acknowledges:
"The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were
continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing
themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. The rebels argue that they
cannot afford to shun any potential allies while they are under fire, including well-armed
and motivated jihadists, without more robust aid from their international backers." (You might
note how the article subtly blames the rebel dependence on Al Qaeda on the lack of "robust
aid" from the Obama administration and other outside countries even though such arms shipments
violate international law.)
What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda's affiliate, the
recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the
brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted "moderates" are serving in mostly support roles.
The Times reported:
"The insurgents have a diverse range of objectives and backers, but they issued statements
of unity on Friday. Those taking part in the offensive include the Levant Conquest Front, a
militant group formerly known as the Nusra Front that grew out of Al Qaeda; another hard-line
Islamist faction, Ahrar al-Sham; and other rebel factions fighting Mr. Assad that have been
vetted by the United States and its allies."
The article cites Charles Lister, a senior fellow and Syria specialist at the Middle East
Institute in Washington, and other analysts noting that "the vast majority of the American-vetted
rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments
against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the
brunt of front-line fighting."
Lister noted that 11 of the 20 or so rebel groups conducting the Aleppo "offensive have
been vetted by the CIA and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles.
"In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels' weaponry comes from
regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne
multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges."
The U.S./Al Qaeda Alliance
In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into
Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda's new military offensive against
Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an
ally of Al Qaeda....
"... Time is running short for President Obama to make good on his 2009 promise "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet as both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times recently reported, Obama's advisers may have just nixed the single most important reform advocated by arms control advocates: a formal pledge that the United States will never again be the first country to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. ..."
"... Two-thirds of adult Americans surveyed support such a policy. So do 10 U.S. senators who wrote President Obama in July, proposing a no-first-use declaration to "reduce the risk of accidental nuclear conflict" and seeking cut-backs in his trillion dollar plan for nuclear modernization over the next 30 years. ..."
"... In a 2007 manifesto, Carter, Moniz, and other centrist Democratic foreign policy experts rejected the old claim that nuclear weapons are still needed to deter non-nuclear attacks. ..."
"... They also gave strong implicit support to a no-first-use doctrine, stating that "nuclear weapons must be seen as a last resort, when no other options can ensure the security of the U.S. and its allies." ..."
"... "Using nuclear weapons first against Russia and China would endanger our and our allies' very survival by encouraging full-scale retaliation," he and a colleague wrote. "Such use against North Korea would be likely to result in the blanketing of Japan and possibly South Korea with deadly radioactive fallout." ..."
"... As two senior officials at the Arms Control Association observed recently in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , "Among other advantages, a clear US no-first-use policy would reduce the risk of Russian or Chinese nuclear miscalculation during a crisis by alleviating concerns about a devastating US nuclear first-strike. ..."
"... Why would anyone believe the US would not strike first with nukes, pledge or no pledge? This country has lied so much. Nobody cares anymore. To Americans there are worse things in the world than slaughtering millions of people in war by "mistake", and that's the prospect of not looking tough. ..."
"... Before considering the relative merits of a "no first use" policy for nuclear weapons, it would first be necessary to consider whether words like "policy" actually mean anything relative to the U.S. history of the last seventy years. ..."
"... The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be "harmless to the surrounding civilian population". Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a "humanitarian undertaking". ..."
"... Overkill has been part of the American war strategy for some time and could be a sign of fear-inspired paranoia. People with a lot to lose are prone to magnifying threats. ..."
The U.S. threat to launch a first-strike nuclear attack has little real strategic value though
it poses a real risk to human survival but President Obama fears political criticism if he changes
the policy, as Jonathan Marshall explains.
Time is running short for President Obama to make good on his 2009
promise "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," for which he won
the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet as both the
Wall Street Journal and
New York Times recently reported, Obama's advisers may have just nixed the single most important
reform advocated by arms control advocates: a formal pledge that the United States will never again
be the first country to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
Ever since President Truman ordered two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, the United States
has reserved the right to initiate nuclear war against an overwhelming conventional, chemical or
biological attack on us or our allies. But peace advocates - and more than a few senior military
officers - have long warned that resorting to nuclear weapons would ignite a global holocaust, killing
hundreds of millions
of people .
President Barack Obama uncomfortably accepting the Nobel Peace Prize from Committee Chairman
Thorbjorn Jagland in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009. (White House photo)
In a
talk to the annual meeting of the Arms Control Association on June 6, Deputy National Security
Advisor Benjamin Rhodes promised that President Obama would continue to review ways to achieve his
grand vision of a nuclear-free world during his last months in office. Obama was
reportedly considering a "series of executive actions" to that end, including a landmark shift
to a "no first use" policy.
Two-thirds of adult Americans surveyed
support such a policy. So do 10 U.S. senators who
wrote President Obama in July, proposing a no-first-use declaration to "reduce the risk of accidental
nuclear conflict" and seeking cut-backs in his
trillion dollar plan for nuclear modernization over the next 30 years.
But Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz (who oversees the
nuclear stockpile), and Secretary of State John Kerry all warned during a National Security Council
meeting in July that declaring a policy of "no first use" would alarm America's allies, undercut
U.S. credibility, and send a message of weakness to the Kremlin at a time of tense relations with
Russia.
Yet until they took charge of giant bureaucracies whose funding depends on keeping the threat
of nuclear war alive, both Carter and Moniz were on record supporting "a new strategy for
reducing nuclear threats" and achieving security "at significantly lower levels of nuclear forces
and with less reliance on nuclear weapons in our national security strategy."
In a 2007 manifesto, Carter, Moniz, and other centrist Democratic foreign policy experts rejected
the old claim that nuclear weapons are still needed to deter non-nuclear attacks.
"Nuclear weapons are much less credible in deterring conventional, biological, or chemical weapon
attacks," they wrote. "A more effective way of deterring and defending against such non-nuclear attacks
and giving the President a wider range of credible response options would be to rely on a robust
array of conventional strike capabilities and strong declaratory policies."
They also gave strong implicit support to a no-first-use doctrine, stating that "nuclear weapons
must be seen as a last resort, when no other options can ensure the security of the U.S. and its
allies."
Risk of Overreaction
Why does a no-first-use policy matter? In a New York Times
column last month, Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
head of the United States Strategic Command, emphasized the folly of introducing nuclear weapons
into any conflict.
"Using nuclear weapons first against Russia and China would endanger our and our allies' very
survival by encouraging full-scale retaliation," he and a colleague wrote. "Such use against North
Korea would be likely to result in the blanketing of Japan and possibly South Korea with deadly radioactive
fallout."
A policy of no first use, backed up by a reconfiguration of U.S. nuclear forces to reduce their
offensive capabilities, would lower the chance of a rival nuclear power rushing to launch early in
a crisis and unleashing World War III. Today some nuclear powers like Russia have their forces on
hair-trigger alert for fear of being wiped out by a U.S. surprise attack; as a result, the world
is just one
false alarm away from all-out nuclear war.
As two senior officials at the Arms Control Association
observed recently
in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , "Among other advantages, a clear US no-first-use
policy would reduce the risk of Russian or Chinese nuclear miscalculation during a crisis by alleviating
concerns about a devastating US nuclear first-strike.
"Such risks could grow in the future as Washington develops cyber offensive capabilities that
can confuse nuclear command and control systems, as well as new strike capabilities and strategic
ballistic missile interceptors that Russia and China believe may degrade their nuclear retaliatory
potential."
They also discounted the claim that U.S. allies such as Japan or Korea would rebel against such
a change of policy: "They are highly likely to accept such a decision, since no first use will in
no way weaken US military preparedness to confront non-nuclear threats to their security. . . Many
US allies, including NATO members Germany and the Netherlands, support the adoption of no-first-use
policies by all nuclear-armed states."
Warnings by nuclear hawks that a common-sense doctrine of no-first-use would undercut U.S. "credibility"
or project "weakness" are simply business-as-usual attempts by national security bureaucrats to inflate
threats and keep the war machine in high gear. If they succeed in blocking reform, America and the
rest of the world will remain at real risk of annihilation through accidental nuclear escalation.
The question now is whether President Obama will listen to the fear-mongers in his cabinet, or
remember
what he said in May at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial: "Among those nations like my own that hold
nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without
them."
I almost forgot about the "Obama gets a Nobel Prize" joke.
Why would anyone believe the US would not strike first with nukes, pledge or no pledge?
This country has lied so much. Nobody cares anymore. To Americans there are worse things in the
world than slaughtering millions of people in war by "mistake", and that's the prospect of not
looking tough.
exiled off mainstreet September 8, 2016 at 1:10 pm
Unfortunately, nuclear blackmail is central to the Yankee imperium maintaining its claim on
total power. It is Lord Acton's absolute power on steroids. The demonization of Putin on behalf
the harpy's campaign by many whom at one time themselves showed skepticism of the power structure
reveals the complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy of exponents of the Yankee regime.
F. G. Sanford September 8, 2016 at 4:09 pm
Before considering the relative merits of a "no first use" policy for nuclear weapons, it
would first be necessary to consider whether words like "policy" actually mean anything relative
to the U.S. history of the last seventy years.
I don't even have to mention "conspiracy theories" in order to illustrate the point. Gulf of
Tonkin, Operation Phoenix, MK Ultra, Bay of Pigs, Operation Northwoods, subversion of the Paris
Peace Talks, Watergate, October Surprise, Iran Contra, the Church Committee findings, The House
Select Committee on Assassinations, Cointelpro, numerous regime changes and illegal wars including
the falsified case for invasion of Iraq all highlight the complete lawlessness of the U.S.A.
According to international law, The Constitution, numerous treaties and United States public
law, there should be no first use of CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS. Their "first use" constitutes war of
aggression, "The Supreme International Crime" according to Chief Nuremberg Prosecutor, Robert
H. Jackson. What has been missing in the United States for the last seventy years is simply SPECIFICATION
OF CHARGES. All seven of the (known) countries in which we are currently conducting hostile military
operations constitute examples of illegal wars based on our own Constitution and International
Law. Retaliation against the United States for conducting these wars, should some country be willing
or able, WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. Keep in mind, we haven't "won" a war since WWII unless you count
Grenada. Even then, you'd have to ignore the fact that the Russians practically, if not politically,
won WWII.
I realize the good intentions of the author, and I respect his credentials, but this analysis
represents the typical tendency in the U.S. to devolve discourse into specks of sand while drowning
in quicksand. It contributes to official propaganda without realization or intent. SPECIFICATION
OF CHARGES is the topic no journalist seems willing to tackle. Let me give an example. When the
2000 Florida vote recount was underway, Jeb Bush got on the phone to the five biggest law firms
in the state and told them not to represent Al Gore. THAT IS A FELONY. But, rather than discuss
SPECIFICATION OF CHARGES, American journalists were content to stand by and watch an unindicted
felon run for the highest office in the land. After finding out that his brother lied to us, they
abrogated their duty and stood by while he was reelected by another statistically impossible election
result.
Americans may be oblivious to all this, but the rest of the world certainly isn't. They don't
believe a damn thing we say. That will only worsen with the election of a bona fide war monger
in November. NOBODY overseas believes ANY of our "official" narratives. We've stirred up trouble
in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Now, we're working on the Asian Pacific. Europe is overrun
by a refugee crisis we created. Does any rational person not see the risk posed by these unfettered
abuses? Since they cannot match us conventionally, and they see no end to the onslaught of disastrous
U.S. foreign intervention, at least two countries are likely to view a nuclear "first strike"
as their only hope to salvage some semblance of national sovereignty. If anyone has read this
far, thanks for listening. I'm at the point of giving up on further commentary; it all looks pretty
hopeless at this point.
Bill Bodden September 8, 2016 at 5:22 pm
Excellent points.
Joe Tedesky September 9, 2016 at 12:11 am
F.G. We all get fed up and frustrated with our country's sad performances it displays on our world's
stage, but whatever you do don't quit posting commentaries. This evening I was going over archived
articles on this site from the past, and you were one of the commenters going back to around 2011
or maybe it was 2012, but no matter you were there. What I do like about this site, is it is an
oasis in a desert when it comes to the commenters, and you are one of them I totally enjoy. Oh,
and the articles are priceless.
Now, what gets me going of late, isn't just how treaties mean nothing to our American government,
but how things come and go,,and then disappear down a black news hold. For instance, back in 2014
the torture files were brought up in our news media. The Panetta Review, and all that kind of
garbage was finally being exposed. That was until the whole thing vanished like it never existed.
Kind of like going to war to find WMD's, and then when we find there are none, well we just up
and go on about our way, as if nothing ever happened.
The U.S. doesn't respect treaties, and there is never anyone to hold to accountability. We
are the nation who creates the reality. As you have heard, we are the nation who is indispensable
and exceptional. Your either with us, or against us. Another nations sovereignty doesn't mean
a thing when it comes to waging war, if we are right well then we are right. There are no questions
to be answered. What law is there, what legal system can enforce any law national or international,
when it comes to what America does?
To all the commenters on this site, I can't say how much it means to me, to not only comment
here, but more importantly what a pleasure it is to read all your comments and take in the knowledge
I get by reading what you all have to say. Even the comments I don't agree with often leave food
for thought so yes I'm thanking everyone.
We need more not less of the unblinkered and sober assessments like this one you have educated
and enlightened us with here.
Now is not a good time to allow Dr. Feelgood to run amok especially with faux concern governing
the passing contests and ego driven games that endanger not only people, but every living creature
on the planet, except perhaps cock roaches the only ones who will benefit from an unfettered
nuclear policy of when in doubt go nuclear
Abe September 10, 2016 at 10:27 pm
The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.
US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said
to be "harmless to the surrounding civilian population". Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed
as a "humanitarian undertaking".
Thank you .the piece about Jeb Bush near the end was, something that I didn't know. The paragraph
about the "Specifications of charges" was another aspect of which I've never seen mentioned. I
really enjoy well written posts where I can keep filling in bits of the big picture ,as I call
it.
M. September 8, 2016 at 4:32 pm
Nuclear war preparedness and the use of nuclear weapons have already affected so many and will
continue to do so. Nuclear waste disposal alone is a huge problem. Since a nuclear war, limited
or otherwise, will affect the entire world one way or another, it would seem that all nations
should be brought together to have S.A.L.T.- like talks, not just the current nuclear powers,
but the presumed and potential nuclear powers, as well as those nations who will in all likelihood
never have them. Everyone on the planet has a stake in this. It could lead to great reductions
in other kinds of weapons, and possibly, to the most important discussion of all how to have
and maintain real peace in the world. It isn't too late for President Obama to remember what he
said in Hiroshima, as Mr. Marshall stated, and not too late for him to be a true leader and to
act on those words.
Bill Bodden September 8, 2016 at 5:36 pm
Overkill has been part of the American war strategy for some time and could be a sign of fear-inspired
paranoia. People with a lot to lose are prone to magnifying threats.
Obama's recent remarks referring to the insane bombing of Laos that was an example of Nixon's
madness brought reminders of this lunacy. "Over 270 million cluster bombs were dropped on Laos
during the Vietnam War (210 million more bombs than were dropped on Iraq in 1991, 1998 and 2006
combined); up to 80 million did not detonate."
http://legaciesofwar.org/about-laos/secret-war-laos/
That was probably more than a dozen cluster bombs for each Laotian man, woman and child.
In addition to suggesting this was insanity on the part of the Nixon-Kissinger administration
it probably also indicates gross incompetence or a lack of moral courage on the part of the leadership
in the Air Force.
"... Like all modern presidents, Obama quickly learned the political economy of the entrenched nuclear establishment, committing a trillion dollars to the "modernization" of the arsenal and its delivery systems 30 years beyond his presidency. ..."
"... Such staggering expenditures are, however, even more unlikely to purchase the order and security that Secretary Carter promised than when Mumford issued his warning. That was well before thousands of thermonuclear weapons waited on hair-trigger alert for the order to launch or a glitch that would do so without an order. ..."
"... In his recently published book My Journey At the Nuclear Brink, Bill Clinton's Defense Secretary William Perry detailed the numerous close calls by which the world has dodged partial or all-out Armageddon and claimed that the likelihood of disaster is growing rather than diminishing. Most of these events are unknown to the public. ..."
"... Obama changed the US nuclear weapon policy by adopting "first strike doctrine". ..."
"... That, along with aggressive moves to install anti missile systems (which are of dual use and can be retrofitted with offensive weapons) in Poland, Romania and South Korea changed the strategic balance in the USA favor. ..."
Almost goofily, behind Official Washington's latest
warmongering "group think," the U.S. has plunged into a New
Cold War against Russia with no debate about the enormous
costs and the extraordinary risks of nuclear annihilation.
By Gray Brechin
When Lewis Mumford heard that a primitive atomic bomb had
obliterated Hiroshima, the eminent urban and technology
historian experienced "almost physical nausea." He instantly
understood that humanity now had the means to exterminate
itself.
On March 2, 1946, seven months later, he published an
essay titled "Gentlemen: You Are Mad!" Not only did madmen,
Mumford insist, "govern our affairs in the name of order and
security," but he called his fellow Americans equally mad for
viewing "the madness of our leaders as if it expressed a
traditional wisdom and common sense" even as those leaders
readied the means for "the casual suicide of the human race."
In the 70 years since the Saturday Review of Literature
published Mumford's warning, that madness has grown to be
normative so that those who question the cost, safety and
promised security of the nuclear stockpile are regarded as
the Trojans did Cassandra - if they are noticed at all.
"The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the
president gives the order it must be followed," insisted
Hillary Clinton in the third presidential debate as a means
of affirming her own - rather than her opponent's -
qualifications to give that order. "There's about four
minutes between the order being given and the people
responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so."
Four minutes to launch is a minute more than the three to
midnight at which the Doomsday Clock now stands. Clinton no
doubt calculated that voters would be more comfortable with
her own steady finger on the nuclear trigger. I can think of
no better proof of Mumford's contention than the fact that
those voters would give any individual the power to abruptly
end life on Earth unless it is that her statement went
unremarked by those keeping score.
The Nobel Mistake
Less than nine months into Barack Obama's presidency,
Norway's Nobel Institute bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize on
him largely on the strength of his pledge during his first
major foreign policy speech in Prague to rid the world of
nuclear weapons. In a 2015 memoir, former secretary of the
Institute Geir Lundestad expressed remorse for doing so,
saying "We thought that it would strengthen Obama and it
didn't have that effect."
Like all modern presidents, Obama quickly learned the
political economy of the entrenched nuclear establishment,
committing a trillion dollars to the "modernization" of the
arsenal and its delivery systems 30 years beyond his
presidency.
As Obama prepared to leave office, his Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter rejected pleas for reducing the stockpile and
announced that the Pentagon planned to spend $108 billion
over five years to "correct decades of underinvestment in
nuclear deterrence dating back to the Cold War." The last
Cold War, that is.
Such staggering expenditures are, however, even more
unlikely to purchase the order and security that Secretary
Carter promised than when Mumford issued his warning. That
was well before thousands of thermonuclear weapons waited on
hair-trigger alert for the order to launch or a glitch that
would do so without an order.
In his recently published book My Journey At the Nuclear
Brink, Bill Clinton's Defense Secretary William Perry
detailed the numerous close calls by which the world has
dodged partial or all-out Armageddon and claimed that the
likelihood of disaster is growing rather than diminishing.
Most of these events are unknown to the public.
Former head of the U.S. Strategic Command General James
Cartwright bolstered Perry's claim when he told a San
Francisco audience that "It makes no sense to keep our
nuclear weapons online 24 hours a day" since "You've either
been hacked and are not admitting it, or you're being hacked
and don't know it." One of those hackers, he said, could get
lucky.
A Non-existent Debate
When Hillary Clinton was asked at a town hall event in
Concord, New Hampshire, if she would reduce expenditures for
nuclear arms and rein in the corporations that sell the
government those weapons, she replied "I think we are overdue
for a very thorough debate in our country about what we need
and how we are willing to pay for it."
Such a debate has never been held and - given the peril,
complexity and cost of nuclear technology - it is never
likely to happen unless a president of exceptional courage
and independence demands it. The profits of weapons
production are simply too great and few of the prospective
victims understandably want to dwell on the unthinkable when
so much more diverting entertainment is available on their
Smartphones.
Nuclear weapons by their nature are inimical to
transparency and thus to the public discussion, control and
democracy they ostensibly protect. Nor does Doomsday make for
winning dinner banter.
The Brookings Institute in 1998 published a study of the
cumulative costs of nuclear weapons entitled Atomic Audit. It
put the bill to date at $5.5 trillion, virtually none of
which was known by the public or even to members of Congress
or the President. The cost simply grew and continues to grow
in the dark, precluding spending on so much else that might
otherwise return in public works and services to those who
unwittingly pay for the weapons while also mitigating the
causes of war abroad....
Dr. Gray Brechin is the Project Scholar of the Living New
Deal University at the UC Berkeley Department of Geography.
That, along with aggressive moves to install anti missile
systems (which are of dual use and can be retrofitted with
offensive weapons) in Poland, Romania and South Korea changed
the strategic balance in the USA favor.
I wonder how Russia and China would react on this.
Currently they still stick to "no first use" principle.
Russia and China would react on this. Currently they still
stick to "no first use" principle.
"
A Fate Worse Than Death
During the inquisition Catholic Priests logically assumed
that living within a community of Jews would be a fate worse
than death thus chose death instead of integration. Sure!
They didn't need to kill all the Jews. They only needed to
kill the ones that didn't convert to Christianity during
their stint with torture.
During the final weeks of Second World War Victory, 33rd
President decided that the American Voters would consider
life with Japanese a fate worse than death thus resolved to
kill off bunch of them even though the execution had nothing
to do with final victory. Hell!
A simple blockade of the industrial island nation would
have starved Japanese of raw materials enough to send the
Japanese straight back to the stone ages thus render them
harmless in less than 2 years. Hell!
The blockade was already in place.
During the Cold War our leaders decided that American
Voters would find it a fate worse than death to be conquered
by communists, a fate worse than death to live without
capitalism. Decided, then fabricated thousands of nuclear
devices, enough devices to provide the kind of strontium
isotope fall out that would allow cockroaches to survive but
render all of humanity forever extinct .
Today, by contrast, we see that Russian Communism has
imploded, Chinese Communism has morphed into Bankster/Capitalism,
and Vietnamese Communism is not trying to subjugate the
World.
In other words, the fear of being conquered does not
logically indicate the need for WoMD, weapons of mass
destruction that could annihilate the entire human race.
Yet the Democrats continue to follow in the foot steps of
33rd President, continue to walk in his footprints. Hell!
What I do not get is how one can call himself/herself a democrat and be jingoistic monster.
That's the problem with Democratic Party and its supporters. Such people for me are DINO ("Democrats
only in name"). Closet neocons, if you wish. The level of militarism in the current US society
and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of
draft) and are limited for libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives. There is almost
completely empty space on the left. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few exceptions
(see
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/27/must-read-of-the-day-dennis-kucinich-issues-extraordinary-warning-on-d-c-s-think-tank-warmongers/
)
I think that people like Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney can now proudly join
Democratic Party and feel themselves quite at home.
BTW Hillary is actually very pleasant with people of the same level. It's only subordinates,
close relatives and Security Service agents, who are on the receiving end of her wrath. A typical
"kiss up, kick down personality".
The right word probably would not "nasty", but "duplicitous".
Or "treacherous" as this involves breaking of previous agreements (with a smile) as the USA
diplomacy essentially involves positioning the country above the international law. As in "I am
the law".
Obama is not that different. I think he even more sleazy then Hillary and as such is more difficult
to deal with. He also is at his prime, while she is definitely past hers:
== quote ==
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current
U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.
Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people
chose, and to discuss any problem.
== end of quote ==
Syria is an "Obama-approved" adventure, is not it ? The same is true for Libya. So formally
he is no less jingoistic then Hillary, Nobel Peace price notwithstanding.
Other things equal, it might be easier for Putin to deal with Hillary then Obama, as she
has so many skeletons in the closet and might soon be impeached by House.
"... She [Hillary Clinton] has concurrently this Clinton Foundation business, where she is granting special favors, special partnerships, special government contracts, weapons deals, etc., to Clinton Foundation donors. So, there's just a lot here that represents how the economic and political elite are very much represented, I think, by both of these candidates, and underscores why it's really important for us to exercise our power in a democracy . ..."
"... To present a no-fly zone here as a solution is extremely dangerous. A no-fly zone means we are going to war with Russia, because it means we will be shooting down planes in the sky in order to create this no-fly zone, which is where Russia has a commitment to defending the Assad government. So, remember, there was a ceasefire, which was very hard-won, and that ceasefire was destroyed by the action of the Americans bombing, apparently by mistake, although some people say not by mistake, but it was our bombing of the Syrian troops that destroyed that ceasefire . ..."
"... That was our part, the U.S., in allowing the nuclear arms race to re-engage . Mikhail Gorbachev, the former premier of the Soviet Union, said last week that we are now at a more dangerous period regarding nuclear war than we have ever been. So, it's really important for the warmongers in the Democratic and Republican parties to be cooling their jets now and for us to be moving forward towards a weapons embargo and a freeze on the funding of those countries that are continuing to fund terrorist enterprises . ..."
'There was a ceasefire, which was very hard-won, and that ceasefire was destroyed by the action
of the Americans bombing, apparently by mistake, although some people say not by mistake, but it
was our bombing of the Syrian troops that destroyed that ceasefire'
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! explains again the process, in this second presidential debate:
" We spend the rest of today's show airing excerpts of the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton debate
and give Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein a chance to respond to the same questions
posed to the major-party candidates. Again, Dr. Stein and Libertarian presidential candidate Gary
Johnson were excluded from the debate under stringent rules set by the Commission on Presidential
Debates, which is controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties. We invited both Stein and
Johnson to join us on the program; only Stein took us up on the offer. "
In this last part of the second debate, Jill Stein, again, was the only presidential candidate
that told the whole truth to the American people without hesitation.
Concerning the Syrian mess and the Russian intervention, Hillary Clinton showed again why she
is the most dangerous to be the next US president. She avoided again to admit the huge responsibility
of the US intervention and their allies in Libya and the Middle East which created absolute chaos.
She blamed again the Russians, although - as Jill Stein stated very correctly - it was the US that
destroyed the hard-won ceasefire in Syria. Hillary showed again her absolute devotion to the neocon/neoliberal
agenda, therefore, start a war with Russia. She showed again how dangerous she is.
On the contrary, Jill Stein stated very clearly that war with Russia is out of question.
Key points:
She [Hillary Clinton] has concurrently this Clinton Foundation business, where she is granting
special favors, special partnerships, special government contracts, weapons deals, etc., to Clinton
Foundation donors. So, there's just a lot here that represents how the economic and political elite
are very much represented, I think, by both of these candidates, and underscores why it's really
important for us to exercise our power in a democracy . We have a right to know who we can vote
for, as well as a right to vote.
Syria is a disaster, and it's a very complicated disaster. It is a civil war. It is a proxy war
among many nations. It is a pipeline war also between Russia and the Gulf states, who are competing
to run their pipelines with fracked gas into Europe across Syria. So, this is a very complicated
situation, and there is a hornets' nest, a real circular firing squad of alliances here that's, you
know, extremely, extremely complicated.
To present a no-fly zone here as a solution is extremely dangerous. A no-fly zone means we
are going to war with Russia, because it means we will be shooting down planes in the sky in order
to create this no-fly zone, which is where Russia has a commitment to defending the Assad government.
So, remember, there was a ceasefire, which was very hard-won, and that ceasefire was destroyed by
the action of the Americans bombing, apparently by mistake, although some people say not by mistake,
but it was our bombing of the Syrian troops that destroyed that ceasefire .
We need to redouble our efforts here. And we need to acknowledge that war with Russia is not an
option. There are 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. And who was it that dropped out of
the nuclear arms control? That was George Bush. That was our part, the U.S., in allowing the
nuclear arms race to re-engage . Mikhail Gorbachev, the former premier of the Soviet Union, said
last week that we are now at a more dangerous period regarding nuclear war than we have ever been.
So, it's really important for the warmongers in the Democratic and Republican parties to be cooling
their jets now and for us to be moving forward towards a weapons embargo and a freeze on the funding
of those countries that are continuing to fund terrorist enterprises .
As
an old SDS-er, I found it hard to see Tom Hayden go. However meandering his path, he was at the heart
of radical history in the 60s, an erstwhile companion, if not always a comrade, on the route of every
boomer lefty.
One of his finer moments for me, which I've never seen mentioned (including among this week's
encomia) since he wrote it, was his 2006
article
, published on CounterPunch with an introduction by Alexander Cockburn, in which he apologized
for a "descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today." It would be respectful
of Hayden's admirers and critics, on the occasion of his passing, to remember which of his actions
"haunted" him the most.
The title of the article says it clearly: "I Was Israel's Dupe." In the essay, Hayden apologizes
for his support of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which was for him that "descent into
moral ambiguity" More importantly, he explains why he did it, in a detailed narrative that everyone
should read.
Hayden sold out, as he tells it, because, in order to run as a Democratic candidate for the California
State Assembly, he had get the approval of the influential Democratic congressman Howard Berman.
Berman is a guy who, when he became Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was proud to
tell the
Forward that he took the job because of his "interest in the Jewish state" and that: "Even before
I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist."
Hayden had to meet with Howard's brother Michael, who, acting as "the gatekeeper protecting
Los Angeles' Westside for Israel's political interests," told Hayden: "I represent the Israeli Defense
Forces"-a sentence that could serve as the motto of most American congress critters today. The "Berman-Waxman
machine," Hayden was told, would deign to "rent" him the Assembly seat on the "one condition: that
I always be a 'good friend of Israel.'"
But American congressmen were not the only "gatekeepers" through whose hands Hayden had to pass
before being allowed to run for Congress. Other "certifiers" included "the elites, beginning with
rabbis and heads of the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, the American-Israel Political
Action Committee (AIPAC), [and].. Israeli ambassadors, counsels general and other officials."
In fact, Hayden had to, in his words, be "declared 'kosher' by the ultimate source, the region's
representative of the state of Israel," Benjamin Navon, Israel's Counsul-general in Los Angeles.
In other words, in this article Hayden was describing, in an unusually concrete way, how the
state of Israel, through its state officials and their compliant American partners, was effectively
managing-exercising veto power over Democratic Party candidates, at the very least-American elections
down to the level of State Assembly . In any constituency "attuned to the question of Israel,
even in local and state elections," Hayden knew he "had to be certified 'kosher,' not once but over
and over again."
This experience prompted Hayden to express a "fear that the 'Israeli lobby' is working overtime
to influence American public opinion on behalf of Israel's military effort to 'roll back the clock'
and 'change the map' of the region." Hayden warned of the "trepidation and confusion among rank-and-file
voters and activists, and the paralysis of politicians, especially Democrats," over support of Israel.
He vowed to "not make the same mistake again," and said: "Most important, Americans must not be timid
in speaking up, as I was 25 years ago."
Whatever else he did-and he was never particularly radical about Palestine-this article was a
genuinely honest and unusual intervention, and it deserves a lot more notice-as a moment in Tom Hayden's
history and that of the American left-than it has got. Looking back and regretfully acknowledging
that one had been duped and morally compromised by what seemed the least troublesome path 25 years
earlier, saying "I woulda, shoulda, coulda done the right thing," is a haunting moment for anyone.
Doing it in a way that exposes in detail how a foreign country constantly manipulates American elections
over decades is worthy of everyone's notice.
I doubt Hillary and her Democratic supporters will have anything to say about this "interference
"in American elections, even local and state. But I do hope many of those who are touched by the
loss of Tom Hayden heed these words from him, and don't wait another 25 years to overcome their "fear
and confusion" about saying and doing the right thing regarding the crimes of Israel, troublesome
as that might be.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current U.S.
administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.
Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people chose,
and to discuss any problem.
Trump
claims that Clinton's policy on Syria would lead to World War 3.
Let's fact check
The Washington Post
points out that a vote for Clinton is a vote for escalating military confrontation in Syria and
elsewhere:
In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama's departure
from the White House - and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton
- is being met with quiet relief.
The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork
for a more assertive American foreign policy, via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who
are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House .
***
The studies, which reflect Clinton's stated views, break most forcefully with Obama on Syria
. call[ing] for stepped-up military action to deter President Bashar al-Assad's regime and Russian
forces in Syria.
***
Most of the studies propose limited American airstrikes with cruise missiles to punish Assad
.
***
Last year, Obama dismissed calls for a no-fly zone in northwestern Syria - a position advocated
by Clinton - as "
half-baked ."
***
Even pinprick cruise-missile strikes designed to hobble the Syrian air force or punish Assad
would risk a direct confrontation with Russian forces, which are scattered throughout the key
Syrian military bases that would be targeted.
"You can't pretend you can go to war against Assad and not go to war against the Russians,"
said a senior administration official who is involved in Middle East policy and was granted anonymity
to discuss internal White House deliberations.
The most liberal presidential candidate still running Green Party candidate Jill Stein says:
Hillary Clinton wants to start an air war with Russia. Let's be clear: That's what a no-fly
zone means. It is tantamount to a declaration of war against Russia.
***
Clearly the Democrats are incredibly embarrassed about the nature of these revelations, and
they've created a smokescreen here to try and distract from that. But that smokescreen is pushing
us to the brink of warfare with Russia now, where you have the U.S. head of defense, Ashton Carter,
talking about nuclear war. We just did a dry run dropping fake nuclear bombs over Nevada. This
is really dangerous stuff; this is not pretend. So we need to take a deep breath here, we need
to step back and stop beating the war drums. In this context, Hillary Clinton is talking about
starting an air war with Russia. Which could slide-you know, we're on the verge of nuclear war
right now.
***
The most likely nuclear threat right now is with Russia. There's no doubt about that. When
you have Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the prime minister of the Soviet Union during the Cold War,
saying that the threat of nuclear war is hotter now than it has ever been in all of history, you've
got to take that pretty seriously. And when you have Hillary Clinton then beating the war drums
against Russia, and essentially saying that if she's elected that we will declare war on Russia-because
that's what a no-fly zone over Syria amounts to. Shooting down Russian warplanes.
***
Hillary Clinton is a disastrous nuclear threat right now in a context where we're already off-the-charts
in the risk of nuclear war. She has stated in this context that she's essentially opening up a
battlefront with Russia. So to my mind, this emerges as the clearest and most present danger.
Prominent liberal economist Jeffrey Sachs
writes in the Huffington Post, in an essay bannered " Hillary Is the Candidate of the War
Machine ":
It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints
on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious
realists who don't want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring
American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.
Just as the last Clinton presidency set the stage for financial collapse, it also set the stage
for unending war. On October 31, 1998 President Clinton signed the
Iraq
Liberation Act that made it official US policy to support "regime change" in Iraq.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed
by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime.
Thus were laid the foundations for the Iraq War in 2003.
Of course, by 2003, Hillary was a Senator and a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, which has
cost the US trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and done more to create ISIS and Middle
East instability than any other single decision of modern foreign policy. In defending her vote,
Hillary parroted the phony propaganda of the CIA:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein
has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability,
and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
Al Qaeda members "
After the Iraq Liberation Act came the 1999 Kosovo War, in which Bill Clinton called in NATO
to bomb Belgrade, in the heart of Europe, and unleashing another decade of unrest in the Balkans.
Hillary, traveling in Africa, called Bill: "I urged him to bomb," she told reporter Lucinda Frank.
Hillary's record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern
US history . Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence
complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches
from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.
Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless
promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary
strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law
but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil
war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the
African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko
Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In the meantime,
Hillary found it hilarious
to declare of Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died."
Perhaps the crowning disaster of this long list of disasters has been Hillary's relentless
promotion of CIA-led regime change in Syria . Once again Hillary bought into the CIA propaganda
that regime change to remove Bashir al-Assad would be quick, costless, and surely successful.
In August 2011, Hillary led the US into disaster with her declaration Assad must
"get out of the way," backed by
secret CIA operations.
Five years later, no place on the planet is more ravaged by unending war, and no place poses
a great threat to US security. More than 10 million Syrians are displaced, and the refugees are
drowning in the Mediterranean or undermining the political stability of Greece, Turkey, and the
European Union. Into the chaos created by the secret CIA-Saudi operations to overthrow Assad,
ISIS has filled the vacuum, and has used Syria as the base for worldwide terrorist attacks.
The list of her incompetence and warmongering goes on. Hillary's support at every turn for
NATO expansion, including even into Ukraine and Georgia against all common sense, was a trip wire
that violated the post-Cold War settlement in Europe in 1991 and that led to Russia's violent
counter-reactions in both Georgia and Ukraine. As Senator in 2008, Hilary co-sponsored
2008-SR439 , to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. As Secretary of State, she then presided
over the restart of the Cold War with Russia.
It is hard to know the roots of this record of disaster. Is it chronically bad judgment? Is
it her preternatural faith in the lying machine of the CIA? Is it a repeated attempt to show that
as a Democrat she would be more hawkish than the Republicans? Is it to satisfy her hardline campaign
financiers? Who knows? Maybe it's all of the above. But whatever the reasons, hers is a record
of disaster. Perhaps more than any other person, Hillary can lay claim to having stoked the violence
that stretches from West Africa to Central Asia and that threatens US security .
Trump would probably be the better choice in the question of war and peace than Clinton.
Clinton has expressly expressed the wish to establish a flight ban on Syria, or parts of it.
*** In truth, it would be an act of war. The risks are unpredictable. Above all, the risk of a
military conflict with Russia.
***
The highest soldier of the United States of America, General Joseph Dunford, President of the
United States General Staff of the United States Forces, is certain. To control the entire airspace
over Syria would mean war with Syria and Russia. Dunford's predecessor in office estimated a few
years ago that an effective flight bomb over Syria would involve the use of 70,000 soldiers and
a monthly cost of $ 1 billion.
But the bottom line is Clinton's proven historical track record she's at least partly responsible
for war after catastrophic war and coup after disastrous coup in
Libya, Syria, Kosovo, Haiti, Honduras and
other countries
around the world.
"... Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems.... ..."
"... She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President ..."
"... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women. ..."
"... The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors! ..."
"... Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA. ..."
"... So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
"... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
"... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear
Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came
from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood
swings' and her health problems....
She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear
Codes much less be running for President because she also is a Criminal and belongs in Federal
Prison.
This is coded speech microaggression. They are discriminating against her because she is a
woman, implying she is 'moody' you know 'hysterical'... hysterectomy... its sexist, its misogynist
its harassment, its abuse, its hate speech.
Come on Liberal media, where are you ... call it out... this is your bread and butter...
Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women.
They did it to Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman... You know they'd do it if Trump said Hillary
was 'moody'.
The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors!
Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player
in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked
them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter
them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence
she is unqualified to lead the USA.
Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):
So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve
US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission.
Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some
of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July
25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot
Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance
team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept
in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to
retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down
orders given to multiple commando teams.
It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus
wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then,
Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking
points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.
Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about,
why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks
after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone
knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy
without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing
the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone
KNEW he was a traitor.
So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that
is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only
the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft
was called in because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.
Tim Kaine: "I don't think we can dignify documents dumped by WikiLeaks and just assume that they're
all accurate and true,"
They were confirmed true when John Podesta's Twitter password was distributed in one of the
WikiLeaks email releases and his Twitter account was hijacked the same day by a troll saying,
"Trump 2016! Hi pol". Checkmate b!tch. see more DNC Russian Hacker Pepe
Regular Guy
12 minutes ago The way they parse words, the Kaine statement still doesn't state the documents
are not accurate. He makes an editorial statement to mislead the listener into thinking there
is some reason to question the facts.
Sounds pretty much like poor temperament to me when you have mood problems. Can we please put
national security on hold for now, we have to check her mood ring. It is imperative for the best
outcome that we check her head space. WOW! That's a real dumb explanation. Maybe if we use the
word mood instead of temperament that will be better than telling people she has health problems
in her head.
"... Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for the American people to stop them. ..."
"... Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people. ..."
"... As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket. ..."
"... According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal" hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO. ..."
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only
one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and
the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority
of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the
warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for
the American people to stop them.
Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality
by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests,
including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life
concerns of the American people.
As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings
where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking
devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to
reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged
a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and
foremost a profitable racket.
How else to explain that in the past 15 years this city's so called bipartisan foreign policy
elite has promoted wars in Iraq and Libya, and interventions in Syria and Yemen, which have opened
Pandora's box to a trusting world, to the tune of trillions of dollars, a windfall for military
contractors. DC's think "tanks" should rightly be included in the taxonomy of armored war vehicles
and not as gathering places for refugees from academia.
According to the
front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends
the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal"
hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya
along with allied powers working through NATO.
The think tankers fell in line with the Iraq invasion. Not being in the tank, I did my own
analysis of the call for war in October of 2002, based on readily accessible information, and
easily concluded that there was no justification for war. I distributed it widely in Congress
and led 125 Democrats in voting against the Iraq war resolution. There was no money to be made
from a conclusion that war was uncalled for, so, against millions protesting in the United States
and worldwide, our government launched into an abyss, with a lot of armchair generals waving combat
pennants. The marching band and chowder society of DC think tanks learned nothing from the Iraq
and Libya experience.
The only winners were arms dealers, oil companies, and jihadists. Immediately after the fall
of Libya, the black flag of Al Qaeda was raised over a municipal building in Benghazi, Gadhafi's
murder was soon to follow, with Secretary Clinton quipping with a laugh, "We came, we saw, he
died." President Obama apparently learned from this misadventure, but not the Washington policy
establishment, which is spoiling for more war.
The self-identified liberal
Center for American Progress (CAP) is now calling for Syria to be bombed, and estimates America's
current military adventures will be tidied up by 2025, a tardy twist on "mission accomplished."
CAP, according to
a report in The Nation, has received funding from war contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing,
who make the bombers that CAP wants to rain hellfire on Syria.
As the drumbeat for an expanded war gets louder, Allen and Lister
jointly signed an op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post, calling for an attack on Syria. The
Brookings Institute,
in a report to Congress , admitted it received $250,000 from the US Central Command, Centcom,
where General Allen shared leadership duties with General David Petraeus. Pentagon money to think
tanks that endorse war? This is academic integrity, DC-style.
And why is Central Command, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department
of transportation, and the US Department of Health and Human Services giving money to Brookings?
Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously
told Colin
Powell , "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we
can't use it," predictably
says of this current moment , "We do think there needs to be more American action." A former
Bush administration top adviser is also
calling for the United States to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria.
The American people are fed up with war, but a concerted effort is being made through fearmongering,
propaganda, and lies to prepare our country for a dangerous confrontation, with Russia in Syria.
The demonization of Russia is a calculated plan to resurrect a raison d'κtre for stone-cold
warriors trying to escape from the dustbin of history by evoking the specter of Russian world
domination.
It's infectious. Earlier this year the BBC broadcast
a fictional show that contemplated
WWIII, beginning with a Russian invasion of Latvia (where 26 percent of the population is ethnic
Russian and 34 percent of Latvians speak Russian at home).
The imaginary WWIII scenario conjures Russia's targeting London for a nuclear strike. No wonder
that by the summer of 2016
a poll showed two-thirds of UK citizens approved the new British PM's launching a nuclear
strike in retaliation. So much for learning the lessons detailed in the Chilcot report.
As this year's presidential election comes to a conclusion, the Washington ideologues are regurgitating
the same bipartisan consensus that has kept America at war since 9/11 and made the world a decidedly
more dangerous place.
The DC think tanks provide cover for the political establishment, a political safety net, with
a fictive analytical framework providing a moral rationale for intervention, capitol casuistry.
I'm fed up with the DC policy elite who cash in on war while presenting themselves as experts,
at the cost of other people's lives, our national fortune, and the sacred honor of our country.
Any report advocating war that comes from any alleged think tank ought to be accompanied by
a list of the think tank's sponsors and donors and a statement of the lobbying connections of
the report's authors.
It is our patriotic duty to expose why the DC foreign-policy establishment and its sponsors
have not learned from their failures and instead are repeating them, with the acquiescence of
the political class and sleepwalkers with press passes.
It is also time for a new peace movement in America, one that includes progressives and libertarians
alike, both in and out of Congress, to organize on campuses, in cities, and towns across America,
to serve as an effective counterbalance to the Demuplican war party, its think tanks, and its
media cheerleaders. The work begins now, not after the Inauguration. We must not accept war as
inevitable, and those leaders who would lead us in that direction, whether in Congress or the
White House, must face visible opposition.
Just like Ron Paul (with whom he agrees on matters of foreign policy and the Fed), he was painted
by MSM as a kook. I wonder why. While I understand that many here would never vote for him because
he believes in things like social programs, so do all of the Republicans in Congress. He would
have made a far better president than zero or McCain.
"... Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. ..."
"... In the end, Putin will be done in by his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs. ..."
This is a very good analyses. But I am less pessimistic: the blowback against neoliberal globalization
is real and it is difficult to swipe it under the carpet.
There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal
elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare"
trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient
bogeyman.
As somebody here said Trump might be a reaction of secular stagnation, kind of trump card put
into play by some part of the elite, because with continued secular stagnation, the social stability
in the USA is under real threat.
But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might make her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo male
politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
All-in-all it looks like she in not a solution for neoliberal elite problems, she is a part
of the problem
Adventurism of the US neoliberal elite, and especially possible aggressive moves in Syria by
Hillary regime ("no fly zone"), makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely (with
Pakistan, Iran and India as possible future members). So Hillary might really work like a powerful
China lobbyist, because the alliance with Russia will be on China terms.
Regime change via color revolution in either country requires at dense network of subservient
to the Western interests and financed via shadow channels MSM (including TV channels), strong
network of NGO and ability to distribute cash to selected members of the fifth column of neoliberal
globalization. All those condition were made more difficult in Russia and impossible in mainland
China. In Russia the US adventurism in Ukraine and the regime change of February 2014 (creation
of neo-fascist regime nicknamed by some "Kaganat of Nuland" (Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-100315.html
)) essentially killed the neoliberal fifth column in Russia and IMHO it no longer represent
a viable political force.
Also Russians probably learned well lesson of unsuccessful attempt of regime change by interfering
into Russian Presidential election process attempted by Hillary and Obama in 2011-2012. I would
like to see the US MSM reaction if Russian ambassador invited Sanders and Trump into the embassy
and promised full and unconditional support for their effort to remove criminal Obama regime,
mired in corruption and subservient to Wall Street interests, the regime that produced misery
for so many American workers, lower middle class and older Americans ;-)
Ambassador McFaul soon left the country, NED was banned and screws were tightened enough to
make next attempt exceedingly difficult. Although everything can happen I would discount the possibility
of the next "White Revolution" in Russia. So called "Putin regime" survived the period of low
oil prices and with oil prices over $60 in 2017 Russian economy might be able to grow several
percent a year. At the same time the US "post-Obama" regime might well face the winds of returning
higher oil prices and their negative influence of economy growth and unemployment.
In China recent troubles in Hong Cong were also a perfect training ground for "anti color revolution"
measures and the next attempt would much more difficult, unless China experience economic destabilization
due to some bubble burst.
That means that excessive military adventurism inherent in the future Hillary regime might
speed up loss by the USA military dominance and re-alignment of some states beyond Philippines.
Angela Merkel regime also might not survive the next election and that event might change "pro-Atlantic"
balance in Europe.
Although the list in definitely not complete, we can see that there are distinct setbacks for
attempts of further neoliberalization beyond Brexit and TPP troubles.
So there are some countervailing forces in action and my impression that the Triumphal march
of neoliberalism with the USA as the hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over, or soon
will be over. In certain regions of the globe the USA foreign policy is in trouble (Syria, Ukraine)
and while you can do anything using bayonets, you can't sit on them.
So while still there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism as a social system, the ideology
itself is discredited and like communism after 1945 lost its hold of hearts and minds of the USA
population. I would say that in the USA neoliberalism entered Zombie stage.
My hope is that reasonable voices in foreign policy prevail, and the disgust of unions members
toward DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) could play the decisive role in coming elections. As bad
as Trump is for domestic policy, it represent some hope as for foreign policy unless co-opted
by Republican establishment.
#70 But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her
male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by
commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
' .makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely '
Any analysis which arrives at this conclusion is profoundly ignorant.
Meta-comment: Is it permitted to say that a moderation scheme which objects to engels as a
troll, while permitting this tripe from likbez has taken a wrong turn somewhere. Seriously, some
explanation called for.
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made
by commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
I would like to apologize about the number of typos, but I stand by statements made. Your implicit
assumption that I am lying was not specific, so let's concentrate on three claims made:
1. "Hillary has serious neurological disease for at least four years", 2. "Obama and Hillary tried to stage color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012 interfering in Russian
Presidential elections" 3. "Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a warmonger similar to John McCain"
1. Hillary Health : Whether she suffers from Parkinson disease or not in unclear, but signs
of some serious neurological disease are observable since 2012 (for four years). Parkinson is just
the most plausible hypothesis based on symptoms observed. Those symptoms suggests that she is at
Stage 2 of the disease due to an excellent treatment she gets:
http://www.viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/news/100312.htm
The average time taken to progress from Stage 1 (mild) to Stage 2 (mild but various symptoms)
was 1 year 8 months. The average time taken to progress from Stage 2 to Stage 3 (typical) was
7 years and 3 months. From Stage 3 to Stage 4 (severe) took 2 years. From Stage 4 to Stage 5 (incapacitated)
took 2 years and 2 months. So the stage with typical symptoms lasts the longest. Those factors
associated with faster progression were older age at diagnosis, and longer disease duration. Gender
and ethnicity were not associated with the rate of Parkinson's Disease progression.
These figures are only averages. Progression is not inevitable. Some people with Parkinson's
Disease have either : stayed the same for decades, reduced their symptoms, rid their symptoms,
or worsened at a rapid rate. For more current news go to Parkinson's Disease News.
Concern about Hillary health were voiced in many publications and signs of her neurological disease
are undisputable:
3. The opinion that Hillary as a neocon is supported by facts from all her career , but
especially during her tenure as the Secretary of State. She voted for Iraq war and was instrumental
in unleashing Libya war and Syria war. The amount of evidence can't be ignored:
If you have more specific concerns please voice them and I will try to support my statements with
references and known facts.
stevenjohnson 10.26.16 at 1:50 pm
likbez @70 Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great
deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social
Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using
the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's
belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. But whether mine
is actually a deep analysis seems doubtful even to me.
But the OP is really limiting itself solely to domestic politics, and in that context the
resistance to "neoliberal globalization," (Why not use the term "imperialism?") is more or
less irrelevant. The OP seems to have some essentialist notion of the "Right" as openly aimed
at restoring the past, ignoring the content of policies. Reaction would be something blatant
like restoring censorship of TV and movies, instead of IP laws that favor giant
telecommunications companies, or abolition of divorce, instead of discriminatory enforcement
of child protection laws that break up poor families. This
cultural/psychological/moralizing/spiritual approach seems to me to be fundamentally a
diversion from a useful understanding.
There may be some sort of confused notions about popular morals and tastes clearly evolving
in a more leftish direction. Free love was never a conservative principle for instance, yet
many of its tenets are now those of the majority of the population. Personally I can only
observe that there's nothing quite like the usefulness of laws and law enforcement,
supplemented by the occasional illicit violence, to change social attitudes. The great model
of course is the de facto extermination of the Left by "McCarthyism." No doubt the
disappearance of the left targeted by "McCarthyism" is perceived to be a purification of the
real left. It is customary for the acceptable "left" to agree with the McCarthys that
communism lost its appeal to the people, rather than being driven out by mass repression. As
to populism, such reactionary goals as the abolition of public education are notoriously sold
as service to the people against the hifalutin' snobs, starting of course with lazy ass
teachers. It seems to me entirely mistaken to see the populist reactionaries as out of
ammunition because the old forms of race-baiting aren't working so well.
By the way, there already is a Chinese bourgeoisie, in Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, as well as elements in SEZs in China proper and select circles
in various financial capitals. Restoration of capitalism in China has run into the difficulty
that capitalism isn't holding up its end. President Xi Jinping is finding it difficult for
capitalism to keep the mainland economy growing at a sufficiently rapid rate to keep the
working class pacific, much less generate the so-called middle class whose stock market
portfolios will bind them to the new ruling class forever. These are the sources for a
revolution in China, not NGOs or a color revolution. In the end, Putin will be done in by
his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain
from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs.
Val @72 I remember that there were only rare, vague hints about Reagan, not factual
evidence. So unless you are committed to the proposition his Alzheimer's disease only set in
January 21, 1992, demanding factual evidence about the mental and physical health of our
elective divinities seems unduly restrictive I think.
Layman @79 The Shanghai Cooperation Organization alone makes an analysis that a military
alliance between Russia and China reasonable enough. Even if incorrect in the end, it is not
"profoundly ignorant."
Meta-comment: Engels post was perceived as mocking, which was its offense. As for "trolling,"
that's an internet thing...
"... There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare" trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient bogeyman. ..."
"... But it looks like newly formed shadow "Committee for Saving [neo]Liberal Order" (with participation of three latter agencies, just read the recent "Red scare" memorandum ( https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement ) want Hillary to be the POTUS. ..."
1. An ABC news poll says that Clinton has 50% of somebody (the electorate, likely voters?)
supporting her rabidly reactionary rhetoric. She demonizes Putin, imputes treason to a major party
candidate in a way hitherto seen only in Birch Society attacks on Eisenhower, shrieks that it
is utterly impossible to even hint that the current electoral system has no real legitimacy.
The only real criticisms acceptable in the face of her reactionary screeds are hints that
she is a traitor for Clinton Foundation cash and that she is lax on security . (The claim
that Clinton is pro-war are regressions to the Obama primary campaign in 2008. Since he promptly
proved the irrelevance of an anti-war rhetoric, the observations that Clinton has none are equally
irrelevant.)
2. The high levels of indecision suggest that a Trump defeat may well leave the Republican
establishment more or less as it was. Depending on turnout, which even at this late date is highly
uncertain, it is entirely possible the Republicans will maintain control of the Senate. At this
point it is probable they will keep the House. In any event, Clinton has openly committed to
a bipartisan a campaign against the Trump hijacking of the Republican party.
3. Consider the longevity of reactionary leaderships in the major parties. The Democratic
Leadership Council approach has dominated its party for decades. The Republican party projects
like ALEC, the Federalist Society, the Mighty Wurlitzer, the designated superstar talk personality
(no, shifting from Limbaugh to Beck is not a sea change,) everywhere you look behind the scenes
you see the same faces. What new faces appear turn out (like Obama) to be employees of the same
old political establishments. Alleged exceptions like Sanders and Warren are notable primarily
for their lack of commitment.
4. There are bold thinkers willing to imagine the conservative future. Think Jason Brennan
and his book Against Democracy. Even worse, the real strength of the conservatives lies in the
bottom line, not in polemics. Tragically, it's when the bottom line is written in read that it
shrieks the loudest, with the most conviction and the most urgent desire for the masters to unite
against the rest of us.
5. California politics has set the pace once again, demonstrating the absolute irrelevance
of a "Left" defined as a spiritual posture. The annihilation of an ugly materialist Left by "McCarthyism"
has purified the souls of the righetous, leaving socialism/communism unthinkable. California leftism
is entirely safe for capitalism, imperialism and a free market of ideas where the refined consumers
of ideas can have their gated neighborhoods of ideas.
6. The majority support for a more tolerant society makes no difference in policy. Being nicer
is not politics.
There is a fundamental reason for despair, the failures of the right to win the Holy Grail
of a functional capitalist society. Despite their successes in destroying organized labor (with
the help of counter-revolutionary "leftists" to be sure,) in limiting women's rights, in blunting
the real world effects of desegregation, the short-run prospects of capital are disquieting. And
the long run prospects, insofar as these people can see past the quarterly statement, are even
more frightening. Urged by their fears, the system will be ever more destabilized by desperate
adventures. The replacement of Social Security of course will be high on the agenda. The absolutely
vital need for ever more control over the world, including regime change in Russia and China,
has driven foreign policy in direct support of the dollar and banking since at least Bush 41.
But in the end, it is not the madness of the owners that is the cause for despair, but the
absolute indifference of the spiritual leftists who have joined in the rabidly reactionary campaign
against Clinton from the right. (You would have thought it rather difficult to criticize Clinton
from the right, but never underestimate the exigencies of struggle against totalitarianism.) Win
or lose, this campaign has endorsed reaction, top to bottom. On the upside, the likelihood of
a Clinton impeachment offers much value for your entertainment dollar.
likbez 10.26.16 at 1:10 am
stevenjohnson
@58
This is a very good analyses. But I am less pessimistic: the blowback against neoliberal globalization
is real and it is difficult to swipe it under the carpet.
There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal
elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare"
trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient
bogeyman.
As somebody here said Trump might be a reaction to secular stagnation, kind of trump card put
into play by some part of the elite, because with continued secular stagnation, the social stability
in the USA is under a real threat.
But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her
male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
All-in-all it looks like she in not a solution of neoliberal elite problems, she is a part
of the problem
Adventurism of the US neoliberal elite, and especially possible aggressive moves in Syria by
Hillary regime ("no fly zone"), makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely (with
Pakistan, Iran and India as possible future members). So Hillary might really work like a powerful
China lobbyist, because the alliance with Russia will be on China terms.
Regime change via color revolution in either country requires at dense network of subservient
to the Western interests and financed via shadow channels MSM (including TV channels), NGO and
ability to distribute cash to selection members of fifth column of neoliberalism. All those condition
were made more difficult in Russia and impossible in mainland China. In Russia the US adventurism
in Ukraine and the regime change of February 2014 (creation of neo-fascist regime nicknamed by
some "Kaganat of Nuland" (Asia times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-100315.html
) essentially killed the neoliberal fifth column in Russia and IMHO it no longer represent
a viable political force.
Also Russians probably learned well lesson of unsuccessful attempt of regime change by interfering
into Russian Presidential election process attempted by Hillary and Obama in 2011-2012. I would
like to see the US MSM reaction if Russian ambassador invited Sanders and Trump into the embassy
and promised full and unconditional support for their effort to remove criminal Obama regime,
mired in corruption and subservient to Wall Street interest, the regime that produced misery for
so many American workers, lower middle class and older Americans ;-)
Ambassador McFaul soon left the country, NED was banned and screws were tightened enough to
make next attempt exceedingly difficult. Although everything can happen I would discount the possibility
of the next "While Revolution" in Russia. So called "Putin regime" survived the period of low
oil prices and with oil prices over $60 in 2017 Russian economy might be able to grow several
percent a year. At the same time the US "post-Obama" regime might well face the winds of returning
higher oil prices and their negative influence of economy growth and unemployment.
In China recent troubles in Hong Cong were also a perfect training ground for "anti color revolution"
measures and the next attempt would much more difficult, unless China experience economic destabilization
due to some bubble burst.
that means that excessive military adventurism inherent in the future Hillary regime might
speed up loss by the USA military dominance and re-alignment of some states beyond Philippines.
Angela Merkel regime also might not survive the next election and change "pro-Atlantic" balance
in Europe.
Although the list in definitely not complete, we can see that there are distinct setbacks for
attempts of further neoliberalization - Brexit and TPP troubles.
So there are some countervailing forces in action and my impression that the Triumphal march
of neoliberalism with the USA as a hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over or soon
will be over. In certain regions of the globe the USA foreign policy is in trouble (Syria, Ukraine)
and while you can do anything using bayonets, you can't sit on them.
So while still there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism as social system, the ideology
itself is discredited and like communism after 1945 lost its hold of hearts and minds of the USA
population. I would say that in the USA neoliberalism entered Zombie stage.
My hope is that reasonable voices in foreign policy prevail, and the disgust of unions members
toward DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) could play the decisive role in coming elections. As bad
as Trump is for domestic policy, it represent some hope as for foreign policy unless co-opted
by Republican establishment.
likbez :
October 24, 2016 at 12:00 PM
My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote
for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible
with democratic principles.
She is way too militant, and is not that different in this
respect from Senator McCain. That creates a real danger of
unleashing the war with Russia.
Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some
kind of dιtente with Russia.
Just a hunch: a lot of this hoo-hah will simmer down after
the election.
But yeah, I'm really bummed that we are going
to be seeing a return of a lot of the same creeps who gave us
the foreign policy of the 90's that went belly up in 2001-03.
Just a reminder: I called attention several times to this
article in 2014 and 2015:
The Next Act of the Neocons
Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
By JACOB HEILBRUNN
WASHINGTON - AFTER nearly a decade in the political
wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the
turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President
Obama, not the movement's interventionist foreign policy that
dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears
responsibility for the current round of global crises.
Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be
preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with
Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign,
in a bid to return to the driver's seat of American foreign
policy.
To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older
generation of neocons - Paul D. Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremer
III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle - are permanently
buried in the sands of Iraq. And not all of them are eager to
switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of The
Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would
"be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline."
But others appear to envisage a different direction - one
that might allow them to restore the neocon brand, at a time
when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning
away from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.
It's not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the
historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly
praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a
neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic
tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but
also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group
during Mrs. Clinton's time at the State Department.
Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at
standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American
Enterprise Institute; instead, he's a senior fellow at the
Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by
Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under
President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate
to become secretary of state in a new Democratic
administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article
"magisterial," in what amounts to a public baptism into the
liberal establishment.)
Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Kagan and others have
insisted on maintaining the link between modern
neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War
liberalism. Among other things, he has frequently praised
Harry S. Truman's secretary of state, Dean Acheson, drawing a
line from him straight to the neocons' favorite president:
"It was not Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon but Reagan whose
policies most resembled those of Acheson and Truman."
Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan's careful centrism
and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations,noted in The New Republic
this year that "it is clear that in administration councils
she was a principled voice for a strong stand on
controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or
the intervention in Libya."
And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton
voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian
rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to
Adolf Hitler...
This former associate of Dick Cheney managed to completely
destroy pretty nice European county, unleashing the horror of
real starvation on the population.
Ukraine now is essentially Central African country in the
middle of the Europe. Retirees often live on less then $1 a
day. most adults (and lucky retirees) on less then $3 a day.
$6 a day is considered a high salary. At the same time
"oligarchs" drive on Maybachs, and personal jets.
Sex tourism is rampant. Probably the only "profession"
that prospered since "Maydan".
Young people try to get university education and emigrate
to any county that would accept them (repeating the story of
Baltic countries and Poland).
Now this a typical IMF debt slave with no chances to get
out of the hole.
Politically this is now a protectorate of the USA with the
USA ambassador as the real, de-facto ruler of the country.
Much like Kosovo is.
Standard of living dropped approximately three times since
2014.
"If the country continues on its present course, Odessa's
reformist governor Mikheil Saakashvili has noted
sarcastically, Ukraine will not reach the level of GDP it had
under former president Viktor Yanukovych for another fifteen
years"
"In Kiev, which is by far the wealthiest city in Ukraine,
payment arrears for electricity have risen by 32 percent
since the beginning of this year."
The Next Act of the Neocons
Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
By JACOB HEILBRUNN
WASHINGTON - AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement
is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement's
interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears
responsibility for the current round of global crises.
Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning
themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return
to the driver's seat of American foreign policy.
To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older generation of neocons - Paul D. Wolfowitz,
L. Paul Bremer III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle - are permanently buried in the sands of
Iraq. And not all of them are eager to switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of
The Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would "be a dutiful chaperone of further
American decline."
But others appear to envisage a different direction - one that might allow them to restore
the neocon brand, at a time when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning away
from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.
It's not as outlandish as it may sound.
Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author
of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto.
He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren
but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton's time at the
State Department.
Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like
the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he's a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution,
that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President
Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic
administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article "magisterial," in what amounts to a public
baptism into the liberal establishment.)
Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Kagan and others have insisted on maintaining the link between
modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism. Among other things, he has
frequently praised Harry S. Truman's secretary of state, Dean Acheson, drawing a line from him
straight to the neocons' favorite president: "It was not Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon but Reagan
whose policies most resembled those of Acheson and Truman."
Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan's careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max
Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in The New Republic this year
that "it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand
on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya."
And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported
sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler...
Anne and I have seen this for a while.
Nothing new Strobe Talbott was closeted [neocon], and
brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria Nuland in to State in 1993.
Bill bearded the bear breaking Kosovo and Bosinia out of Serbia... The down payment for
Kyiv in 2012 was in 1996.
This former associate of Dick Cheney managed to completely destroy pretty nice European county,
unleashing the horror of real starvation on the population.
Ukraine now is essentially Central African country in the middle of the Europe. Retirees often
live on less then $1 a day. most adults (and lucky retirees) on less then $3 a day. $6 a day is
considered a high salary. At the same time "oligarchs" drive on Maybachs, and personal jets.
Sex tourism is rampant. Probably the only "profession" that prospered since "Maydan".
Young people try to get university education and emigrate to any county that would accept them
(repeating the story of Baltic countries and Poland).
Now this a typical IMF debt slave with no chances to get our the hole.
Politically this is now a protectorate of the USA with the USA ambassador as the real, de-facto
ruler of the county. Much like Kosovo is.
Standard of living dropped approximately three times since 2014.
"If the country continues on its present course, Odessa's reformist governor Mikheil
Saakashvili has noted sarcastically, Ukraine will not reach the level of GDP it had under former
president Viktor Yanukovych for another fifteen years"
"In Kiev, which is by far the wealthiest city in Ukraine, payment arrears for electricity
have risen by 32 percent since the beginning of this year."
"... Wait just a damn minute. Why is the DNI telling THE RUSSIANS what the USIC suspects? Wouldn't
that blunt the capability for taking counter measures? Unless... red herring? ..."
"... The problem with "the Russians" tale is that the Podesta emails are rather weak sauce. Is there
anyone paying close attention that didn't know HRC's camp had influential contacts in the media and
the DNC and used them to their advantage? ..."
"... Indeed. So far there is a little of note in the leaked emails. They confirm, among the other
things we already knew: ..."
"... The Clintonites don't think very highly of Sanders. ..."
"... They have a lot of trusted friends in the media - some *very* trusted embeds. ..."
"... There is a difference between what Clinton says in public and what she really believes. ..."
"... They didn't want to release the content of the Goldman Sachs speeches because the contents
included a lot of Clinton pandering and rear-kissing to banksters. ..."
"... Podesta is an influential man, and a lot of people email him to use his influence and for help
them. ..."
"... Presumably, if US intelligence is so confident about Russian government methods, motivations,
tactics, tic tacs and techniques they also should have a pretty damn good idea about what is still out
there and also would have the means to disrupt its dissemination, if necessary. ..."
"... In other words, don't hold yer breath. ..."
"... "First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very
strange." ..."
"... Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake! ..."
"... Keith B. Alexander:"Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds
of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense."
..."
"... "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee
in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator
asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning.
Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having
given false testimony." ..."
"... We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control
of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise.
..."
"... That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks. ..."
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent
compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.
The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the
Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.
These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity
is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia,
for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of
these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
Wait just a damn minute. Why is the DNI telling THE RUSSIANS what the USIC suspects? Wouldn't
that blunt the capability for taking counter measures? Unless... red herring?
The problem with "the Russians" tale is that the Podesta emails are rather weak sauce. Is
there anyone paying close attention that didn't know HRC's camp had influential contacts in the
media and the DNC and used them to their advantage?
I'm shocked, shocked that there is backroom power politics going on in a political campaign!
The upshot of the WikiLeaks Podesta emails is to DISCREDIT WIKILEAKS as an independent source
of disclosure.
Indeed. So far there is a little of note in the leaked emails. They confirm, among the other
things we already knew:
1. The Clintonites don't think very highly of Sanders.
2. They have a lot of trusted friends in the media - some *very* trusted embeds.
3. There is a difference between what Clinton says in public and what she really believes.
4. They didn't want to release the content of the Goldman Sachs speeches because the contents
included a lot of Clinton pandering and rear-kissing to banksters.
5. Podesta is an influential man, and a lot of people email him to use his influence and
for help them.
"One of the first leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings
by a user named "Feliks Dzerzhinsky." Dzerzhinsky was the founder of the Cheka, the Soviet secret
police"
The Russian connect was not "revealed" by NSA alone and the evidence for anybody who understand
computers and "trails" is quite strong.
The fact that the initial "leaks" were not such a big deal was no surprise. Given Julian's
desperate need to not get Clinton into the white house, you would expect him to save the most
juicy stuff until a few days before the election.
From the Esquire article: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator... was particularly prolific. Hours
after the first Guccifer 2.0 dump, on the evening of June 15, Tait found something curious."
For the record, "GCHQ" does not refer to the magazine, Gentlemen's Quarterly.
Presumably, if US intelligence is so confident about Russian government methods, motivations,
tactics, tic tacs and techniques they also should have a pretty damn good idea about what is still
out there and also would have the means to disrupt its dissemination, if necessary.
Well, I assume Podesta has given somebody all of his emails, so they can compare against what
is already released and see what is to come. I think their only defense against it is to try to
discredit whatever it is ahead of time.
Only your imagination is the limit - since they are not real. But we will most likely never know
since even Assange knows that he can only lose this one.
No he would be the exact person to make such a mistake. After looking at them he would not have
the technical expertise to understand that he had left a fingerprint.
First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very
strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth
shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc.
This might be a sigh of complete disorganization of executive branch with intelligence agencies
becoming a power players. Kind of "Deep State" morphing into "surface state".
There are might be also multiple valid reasons for disclosing such a sensitive information:
I want your money stupid Pinocchio.
Smoke screen to hide their own nefarious activities and/or blunders within the USA. Actually
existence of Hillary private server is somewhat incompatible with the existence of NSA.
This is one thing when Podesta using gmail. It's quite another when the Secretary of state
uses "bathroom server" with incompetent or semi-competent tech staff and completely clueless
entourage.
Pre-emptive strike reflecting some internal struggle within US Intelligence community itself
with a neocon faction going "all in" to force the viewpoint, and more aggressive toward Russia
stance, which might not be shared by others.
Please note that CIA and DOD are fighting each other in Iraq and Syria to a certain extent.
Increase Anti-Russian hysteria, which helps Hillary as a candidate of neocon establishment.
Russians might recently uncover some nefarious activities (I heard FSB did discover compromised
computers in some ministries) and this is the preparation for the blowback.
The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by
the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts....
-- Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security
[ "Consistent with the methods and motivations..." is a shocking supposition to be made public,
but we have been subject to such suppositions, seemingly with increasing frequency, for these
last 15 years. ]
Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!
Keith B. Alexander:"Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds
of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false From my perspective, this is absolute
nonsense."
...
Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions
of Americans?"
DNI Clapper"No, sir."
Senator Wyden: "It does not?"
DNI Clapper:"Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect,
but not wittingly."
The [IN]operative word there was "collect" which in NSAspeak does not mean... collect.
[ "Consistent with the methods and motivations..." is a shocking supposition to be made public,
but we have been subject to such suppositions, seemingly with increasing frequency, for these
last 15 years. ]
Not shocking anymore. It is, after all, consistent with the methods and motivations of our
rulers.
Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.
Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something
that does relate to Krugmans post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over
the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately though the Democratic Party hasn't
been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.
"I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."
Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call
the "Vichy left" essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their
'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protected it, everybody else be damned.
Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative
of "creative class".
Essentially the behavior the we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".
More "paranoid claptrap" (or should that be Clappertrap?):
Edward Snowden: "...the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James
Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going
back."
"Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee
in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans.
One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses
under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed
justice, and having given false testimony."
My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican
brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.
Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after
so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.
Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably
was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.
Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative
class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to
me.
Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against
her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern
this election cycle.
In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that
Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and
double dealing are still too fresh.
We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses
control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would
be otherwise.
"One of your prime objectives," J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime F.B.I. director, said in one memo,
"should be to neutralize ... the New Left movement."
Notable quotes:
"... First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc. ..."
"... Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient prior. ..."
First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is
very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their
mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc.
This might be a sigh of complete disorganization of executive branch with intelligence agencies
becoming a power players. Kind of "Deep State" morphing into "surface state".
There are might be also multiple valid reasons for disclosing such a sensitive information:
I want your money stupid Pinocchio.
Smoke screen to hide their own nefarious activities and/or blunders within the USA. Actually
existence of Hillary private server is somewhat incompatible with the existence of NSA.
This is one thing when Podesta using gmail. It's quite another when the Secretary of state
uses "bathroom server" with incompetent or semi-competent tech staff and completely clueless
entourage.
Pre-emptive strike reflecting some internal struggle within US Intelligence community itself
with a neocon faction going "all in" to force the viewpoint, and more aggressive toward Russia
stance, which might not be shared by others.
Please note that CIA and DOD are fighting each other in Iraq and Syria to a certain extent.
Increase Anti-Russian hysteria, which helps Hillary as a candidate of neocon establishment.
Russians might recently uncover some nefarious activities (I heard FSB did discover compromised
computers in some ministries) and this is the preparation for the blowback.
I can't claim that a mere mortal like me actually has the slightest clue what is really going
on. All I will hazard is that, whatever it is, it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation
schemes.
Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and
intelligence services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and
resilient prior.
"... There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? ..."
"... Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies." ..."
"... according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible." ..."
"... "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure." ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world." ..."
There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China
Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East
are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national
security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host
a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's
foreign policy?
Watch the rest of the videos in the "Grand Strategy" series.
John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago doesn't shy away from a bold answer: The most pressing
issue is that the United States has a "fundamentally misguided foreign policy." Mearsheimer argues
that there are two dimensions to U.S. foreign policy that get the United States into "big trouble."
First, he says, "We believe that we can dominate the globe, that we can control what happens in every
nook and cranny of the world." The problem with this is that "the world is simply too big and nationalism
is much too powerful of a force to make it possible for us to come close to doing that."
Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United
States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe
that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal
democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies."
The United States has engaged in numerous international military interventions over the past fifteen
years, primarily in the Middle East. Proponents of these interventions argue that they are necessary
in order to build stable democracies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, according to Mearsheimer,
the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that
promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle
barrel is almost impossible."
So why has the United States continued to pursue policies and strategies that fail to convert
U.S. military might into political ends?
Eugene Gholz of the University of Texas at Austin suggests that the root of the issue could be
American hubris. The United States has made the mistake of "thinking we can control things we can't
control." Mearsheimer agrees with Gholz, although he finds the situation perplexing: "It's remarkably
difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same
foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject
failure."
Several other scholars chime in to offer their own thoughts on this thorny issue. Boston University's
Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are
and why we do these things a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris
is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world."
Harvard University's Stephen Walt offers yet another possibility. Walt asks if the U.S. commitment
to its current misguided and damaging foreign policy is due to "deep culture" or if it is result
of "the national security apparatus we built after World War II." Walt thinks it is the latter: the
United States "was not a highly interventionist country until after the Second World War." After
World War II, "we built a large national security state, we had bases everywhere, and then we discovered
that we can't let go of any of that, even though the original reason for building it is gone."
Did the other panelists agree with Walt? Did anyone suggest a different problem as a candidate
for the most pressing issue? Watch the full video above to see and be sure to check out the other
videos of CNI and CKI's panel of nationally acclaimed foreign policy scholars addressing additional
questions.
More stupidity. First off, the American elite (like all elites) is far from unitary and most of them back Republicans, though
they hedge their bets by also supporting centrist Democrats.
I would submit that there are very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick. Greenwald
keeps falling and cannot get up.
ilsm -> EMichael...
Few "will [move the] vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick.
Those "few" were awake during the 80's and see the nuclear/neocon dystopian horror behind Clinton. While Trump mentioned
using nukes, Hillary's nuke policy is 'well' laid out by Robert Kagan and the hegemon interests.
Recall Mao said "go ahead......' Nukes are just another form of the pointless body count strategy.
likbez -> ilsm...
Like before WWI, Hillary might be "a symptom of degenerate [neoliberal] aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power." Gen. Butler,
"War Is A Racket." is still a classic book on the subject.
All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit from Iraqi oil and whatever was
expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that
could have been more efficiently handled, but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war.
The real profit was the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights of the
American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there, and why, if our elites persist,
we might go to war with Russia or China.
The good news is that, because of the unrelenting depredations by American elites on the treasure and rights of the people,
the United States is increasingly unable to wage war effectively. The bad news is that our elites are too blind to see this.
America: Consuming your future today.
====
Peter T 10.23.16 at 8:56 am
faustusnotes
fear of "socialism" meaning, broadly, greater popular participation in politics was explicitly a major factor in the
German and Russian decisions for war. In both cases, they hoped victory would shore up increasingly fragile conservative dominance.
It also underlay British and French attitudes. 1870-1914 was a very stressful time for elites.
1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some voices in favour of negotiations,
but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By the time the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost.
Fear of socialism was again a major factor in the post-war settlements.
Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal order. In the same way, the generation
post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars as the great disaster that shattered the happy old order. The extent of the
damage and loss was much the same in each, although World War I took 5 years to do what the French wars did in 25.
===
Omega Centauri 10.23.16 at 1:13 am ( 33 )
The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards doubling down. This operates
on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication of those involved in the decision to start the conflict.
There is also the horror that if you end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the
families of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very bad for your political
future).
And of course if you quit, what is to stop the enemy from extracting reparations or worse from you, because in his eyes, you
are the criminal party. Much easier to try yet one more offensive, or to lure a formerly neutral party into joining in and opening
up another front, which you hope will break the stalemate.
The thing that appalls me so much about the Great War, is how so many nations were dragged in, by promises of booty
. In many ways it resembles the Peloponnisian war, in its inability to allow neutrals to be neutrals.
"... Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. ..."
"... It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France. ..."
"... And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? ..."
"... That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks. ..."
"... Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result. ..."
"... Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were. ..."
"... Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case. ..."
"... the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war. ..."
"... I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When? ..."
"... It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes. ..."
"... If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences. ..."
"... The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.) ..."
The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914 . . .
Was it? I wonder about that.
Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case
as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. It is on this
point that I think arguments from before the war cannot have the weight the horror of experience must give them. Elite leadership
across Europe failed.
It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder
without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment
in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France.
It is inexplicable, really, unless you can see that the moral and practical case against war is not fully developed between the
wars; if there's a critique that made use of experience in its details in the 1920s and 1930s and made itself heard, I missed
it - it seems like opposites of such an appreciation triumph.
And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? There's certainly a socialist argument against
war, based on the illegitimacy of war's class divisions, which were conveniently exemplified in military rank and reactionary
attitudes among the officer class. That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first
weeks.
Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror
of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result.
bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:47 pm.26
Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted
ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day
and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were.
Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace.
The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case.
Without looking it up I recall Barbara Tuchman using the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping
western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war.
I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally
reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When?
The long effort by reactionary forces to assemble a coalition capable of defeating Napoleon had created in Europe what for
a time was called the Concert of Europe. Austria, Prussia and Russia initially cooperated in suppressing liberal and nationalist
aspirations and that effort gradually morphed into efforts to harness or channel rising liberalism and nationalism and industrial
power.
It was the evolved apparatus descended from Metternich's Congress of Vienna thru Bismarck's Congress of Berlin that made wars
brief and generally decisive in regard to some policy end.
The long list of successive crises and brief wars that stevenjohnson references above - often cited as evidence of the increasing
fragility of the general peace - could just as well be cited as evidence for the continued effectiveness of the antique Concert
of Europe in containing and managing the risk of general war. (Fashoda 1898, Venezuela 1902, Russo-Japanese War 1905, Agadir 1911,
Balkan Wars 1911-1912 - it can be a very long list).
It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts
had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations
of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes.
If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't
that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences.
It was one of the mechanisms for peace by international law - the neutrality of Belgium mutually guaranteed by Britain and
Germany in the Treaty of London 1839 - that triggered Britain's entry as an Allied Power and general war. There is, of course,
no particular reason Australia should have taken an interest in Belgium's neutrality, but it was that issue that seemed to compel
the consensus of opinion in favor of war in Britain's government.
The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control
and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.)
What I don't find is the alternative lever or mechanism at the ready, put in place by this fully developed argument against
war. The mechanism in place was the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by international law (arguably reinforced in the stipulations
of the Hague Conference of 1907). If Germany doesn't violate Belgian neutrality, the result in the West at least is stalemate
as France and Germany are evenly matched across their narrow and mostly impassable frontier; in the East, Russia must concede
to Germany even as Austria must concede to Russia; - instead of a general conflagration, the result is another negotiated settlement
of some sort, perhaps arbitrated by Britain or the U.S.
The urgent questions of the day regarding the organization of modern liberal polities in the territories of Ottoman Turkey,
Hapsburg Austria and Czarist Russia - what is the strongly argued and fully developed case there? How is the cause of Polish nationalism,
or Finnish nationalism or Yugoslav nationalism to be handled or managed without violence and war?
The antique system of a Concert of Europe had kinda sorta found a way by means of short and decisive engagements followed by
multi-power negotiation, a pattern that had continued with the gradual emergence of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania. But, where was
the argument for managing irredentism and nationalist aspiration peacefully?
"... The Democratic nominee in the final debate reiterated her bellicose stance towards Syria. Combined with her 2003 vote for war in Iraq, and her central role in getting the U.S. into the 2011 war in Libya, Clinton could become the most hawkish candidate elected president in most Americans' lifetimes. ..."
"... Enforcing a no-fly zone is "basically an act of war," Michael Knights, a no-fly-zone expert at the Washington Institute told me in the run up to the Libyan war. ..."
"... "Hillary's War," was the Washington Post's headline for a flattering feature on the Secretary of State's central role in driving the U.S. to intervene in Libya's civil war in 2011. ..."
"... Clinton staff, published emails have shown, worked hard to get Clinton credit for the war. Clinton's confidante at the State Department Jake Sullivan drafted a memo on her "leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's Libya policy from start to finish." ..."
"... Hillary's war was illegal-because the administration never obtained congressional authorization for it-and it was also disastrous. "Libya is in a state of meltdown," John Lee Anderson wrote in the Atlantic last summer. ..."
"... Yet somehow, through three general election debates, she never got a single question on Libya. Consider that: a former Secretary of State touted a war as a central achievement of hers, is running on her foreign-policy chops, and she is escaping accountability for that disastrous war. ..."
"... Clinton, of course, also voted for the Iraq War in 2003. She says now she thinks that war was a mistake because it destabilized region. But somehow she doesn't apply that supposed lesson to Libya or to Syria. ..."
"... The pattern is clear: Hillary Clinton is consistently and maybe blindly pro-war. She is now the clear frontrunner to become our next president. The antiwar movement that flourished under President George W. Bush has disappeared under President Obama . Will it revive under Hillary? Will Republicans have the power or the desire to check her ambitious interventionism. ..."
Hillary Clinton
can change her views in an instant on trade, guns, gay marriage, and all sorts of issues, but
she's consistent in this: she wants war.
The Democratic nominee in the final debate reiterated her bellicose stance towards Syria. Combined
with her 2003 vote for war in Iraq, and her central role in getting the U.S. into the 2011 war in
Libya, Clinton could become the most hawkish candidate elected president in most Americans' lifetimes.
"I am going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria," Clinton said
Wednesday night. Totally separate from the fight against ISIS, Clinton's "no-fly zones and safe havens"
are U.S. military intervention in the bloody and many-sided conflict between Syria's brutal government,
terrorist groups, and rebel groups.
Enforcing a no-fly zone is "basically an act of war," Michael Knights, a no-fly-zone expert at
the Washington Institute told me in the run up to the Libyan war. Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate that a no-fly zone created "the
potential of a direct conflict with the Syrian integrated air defense system or Syrian forces or,
by corollary, a confrontation with the Russians."
Defense Secretary Ash Carter testified in the same hearing that "safe zones" would require significant
U.S. boots on the ground.
So while Hillary says she doesn't want war with Russia or Syria, or boots on the ground in Syria,
she pushes policies that the Pentagon says risk war and require boots on the ground.
Hillary showed that same cavalier attitude toward war earlier this decade, laughingly
declaring "we came, we
saw, he died." This was her version of George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment, and Libya
was her smaller - and less legal - version of Bush's Iraq War.
"Hillary's War," was the Washington Post's headline for a flattering feature on the Secretary
of State's central role in driving the U.S. to intervene in Libya's civil war in 2011.
Clinton staff, published emails have shown, worked hard to get Clinton credit for the war.
Clinton's confidante at the State Department Jake Sullivan drafted a memo on her "leadership/ownership/stewardship
of this country's Libya policy from start to finish."
Sullivan listed, point-by-point, how Clinton helped bring about and shape the war. Before Obama's
attack on Moammar Gadhafi, "she [was] a leading voice for strong UNSC action and a NATO civilian
B5 protection mission," the memo explained.
Hillary's war was illegal-because the administration never obtained congressional authorization
for it-and it was also disastrous. "Libya is in a state of meltdown," John Lee Anderson wrote in
the Atlantic last summer.
ISIS has spread, no stable government has arisen, and the chaos has led to refugee and terrorism
crises.
Clinton nevertheless calls her war "smart power at its best," declaring during the primary season,
"I think President
Obama made the right decision at the time."
Yet somehow, through three general election debates, she never got a single question on Libya.
Consider that: a former Secretary of State touted a war as a central achievement of hers, is running
on her foreign-policy chops, and she is escaping accountability for that disastrous war.
Clinton, of course, also voted for the Iraq War in 2003. She says now she thinks that war
was a mistake because it destabilized region. But somehow she doesn't apply that supposed lesson
to Libya or to Syria.
The pattern is clear:
Hillary Clinton
is consistently and maybe blindly pro-war. She is now the clear frontrunner to become our next
president. The antiwar movement that flourished under President George W. Bush has disappeared under
President Obama
. Will it revive under Hillary? Will Republicans have the power or the desire to check her ambitious
interventionism.
If Hillary wins big and sweeps in a Senate majority with her, we could be in for four more years
of even more war.
Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at
[email protected]. His column appears
Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.
They are the same neocon creeps... They forgot nothing and learn nothing.
Notable quotes:
"... My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles. ..."
"... Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some kind of dιtente with Russia. ..."
"... In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary. ..."
"... Why do you think "wet kiss with neocons" is compatible with democratic principles ? ..."
"... I'm really bummed that we are going to be seeing a return of a lot of the same creeps who gave us the foreign policy of the 90's that went belly up in 2001-03. ..."
"... But most of the liberal bloggers obediently kept their mouths shut about it. ..."
Just a hunch: a lot of this hoo-hah will simmer down after the election.
But yeah, I'm really bummed that we are going to be seeing a return of a lot of the same
creeps who gave us the foreign policy of the 90's that went belly up in 2001-03.
Just a reminder: I called attention several times to this article in 2014 and 2015:
This strange statement of DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE means direct involvement of Us
intelligence agencies in the US election.
Notable quotes:
"... Not to worry. The "Intelligence Community" (USIC) has it all figured out. ..."
"... Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia. Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight Step three: ?? anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 12:10 PM Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia. Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight Step three: ?? [ Step three could be terrifying if the new Washington and media Cold Warriors and McCarthyists continue on their way. Democrats have become wild, militarist Republicans on foreign affairs, so where is any counter to come from? ..."
"... TIME, the Economist, and the New Yorker have all now published covers portraying Putin as a scary, Evil menace ..."
"... This could be a poster for a horror movie. But it's just the sane, sober, centrist @TheEconomist, doing what they do best ..."
"... The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities. ..."
"... The problem with "the Russians" tale is that the Podesta emails are rather weak sauce. Is there anyone paying close attention that didn't know HRC's camp had influential contacts in the media and the DNC and used them to their advantage? ..."
"... The upshot of the WikiLeaks Podesta emails is to DISCREDIT WIKILEAKS as an independent source of disclosure. ..."
"... http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/ "One of the first leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings by a user named "Feliks Dzerzhinsky." Dzerzhinsky was the founder of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police" ..."
"... From the Esquire article: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator... was particularly prolific. Hours after the first Guccifer 2.0 dump, on the evening of June 15, Tait found something curious." For the record, "GCHQ" does not refer to the magazine, Gentlemen's Quarterly. ..."
"... First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. ..."
"... The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.... ..."
"... Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake! ..."
"... Keith B. Alexander: "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." ..."
"... Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" ..."
"... DNI Clapper "No, sir." ..."
"... Historically it was the USA that started cyberwar and who developed the most advanced capabilities in this space. Remember the worm which tried to subvert functionality of Iranian centrifuges electronics using specially designed malware and Trojans like Flame? ..."
"... So the first suspect should internal (kind of Snowden II), not external. There was also a story with an alternative viewpoint: http://www.amtvmedia.com/why-nsa-may-have-leaked-dnc-emails/ ..."
"... There were also rumors about FOXACID - The NSA's hacking program getting into DNC hands. http://investmentwatchblog.com/warning-trump-fans-be-careful-possible-leaked-info-on-plans-to-attack-trump-supporters/ ..."
"... Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protected it, everybody else be damned. ..."
"... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
"... More "paranoid claptrap" (or should that be Clappertrap?): Edward Snowden: "...the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back." ..."
"... "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony." ..."
"... My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles. ..."
"... In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary. ..."
It's Trump's Party, by Paul Krugman, NY Times : ...Everyone who endorsed Mr. Trump in the
past owns him now... And voters should realize that voting for any Trump endorser is, in effect,
a vote for Trump_vs_deep_state, whatever happens at the top of the ticket.
Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia.
Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight
Step three: ??
[ Step three could be terrifying if the new Washington and media Cold Warriors and McCarthyists
continue on their way. Democrats have become wild, militarist Republicans on foreign affairs,
so where is any counter to come from? ]
When I need to be reminded of just how afraid of the new McCarthyists I have to be, I will
look to the crazily prejudiced cover of The Economist and remember that I have yet to come
across a complaint by any academic economist.
No matter though, as I keep promising I will be naming names. I have my list, and am steadily
writing down names to name and name names from morning to evening I surely will.
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed
the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political
organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and
WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations
of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US
election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and
techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe,
based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials
could have authorized these activities.
The problem with "the Russians" tale is that the Podesta emails are rather weak sauce. Is
there anyone paying close attention that didn't know HRC's camp had influential contacts in the
media and the DNC and used them to their advantage?
I'm shocked, shocked that there is backroom power politics going on in a political campaign!
The upshot of the WikiLeaks Podesta emails is to DISCREDIT WIKILEAKS as an independent
source of disclosure.
Why would Putin want to do that? Why would CLAPPER want to do that?
The Russian connect was not "revealed" by NSA alone and the evidence for anybody who understand
computers and "trails" is quite strong.
The fact that the initial "leaks" were not such a big deal was no surprise. Given Julian's
desperate need to not get Clinton into the White house, you would expect him to save the most
juicy stuff until a few days before the election.
From the Esquire article: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator... was particularly prolific.
Hours after the first Guccifer 2.0 dump, on the evening of June 15, Tait found something curious."
For the record, "GCHQ" does not refer to the magazine, Gentlemen's Quarterly.
First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very
strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth
shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc.
This might be a sigh of complete disorganization of executive branch with intelligence agencies
becoming a power players. Kind of "Deep State" morphing into "surface state".
There are might be also multiple valid reasons for disclosing such a sensitive information:
I want your money stupid Pinocchio.
Smoke screen to hide their own nefarious activities and/or blunders within the USA. Actually
existence of Hillary private server is somewhat incompatible with the existence of NSA.
This is one thing when Podesta using gmail. It's quite another when the Secretary of state
uses "bathroom server" with incompetent or semi-competent tech staff and completely clueless
entourage.
Pre-emptive strike reflecting some internal struggle within US Intelligence community itself
with a neocon faction going "all in" to force the viewpoint, and more aggressive toward Russia
stance, which might not be shared by others.
Please note that CIA and DOD are fighting each other in Iraq and Syria to a certain extent.
Increase Anti-Russian hysteria, which helps Hillary as a candidate of neocon establishment.
Russians might recently uncover some nefarious activities (I heard FSB did discover compromised
computers in some ministries) and this is the preparation for the blowback.
The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and
by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts....
-- Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security
[ "Consistent with the methods and motivations..." is a shocking supposition to be made
public, but we have been subject to such suppositions, seemingly with increasing frequency, for
these last 15 years. ]
Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!
Keith B. Alexander: "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds
of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false From my perspective, this is absolute
nonsense."
...
Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of
millions of Americans?"
DNI Clapper "No, sir."
Senator Wyden: "It does not?"
DNI Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps,
collect, but not wittingly."
The [IN]operative word there was "collect" which in NSAspeak does not mean... collect.
Not shocking at all unless you are ignorant about tracing and analyzing hacks. The traces and
approaches are like fingerprints. Nobody in the business have any doubts that the Russians did
this - but they will never give you the details of how they got to that conclusion, because this
is a public website and the hacking wars are like the missile wars, if the other side knows what
you got they can counter it and make your job harder.
The first rule of such activities on state level is to pretend that you are somebody else deliberately
leaving false clues (IP space, keyboard layout, etc), everything that you call traces.
Historically it was the USA that started cyberwar and who developed the most advanced capabilities
in this space. Remember the worm which tried to subvert functionality of Iranian centrifuges electronics
using specially designed malware and Trojans like Flame?
Using botnets essentially gives anybody substantial freedom about what IP space you want to
use. You can pretend to be Russian if you want to and use computers from Russian IP space.
Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.
Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something
that does relate to Krugmans post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over
the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately though the Democratic Party hasn't
been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.
I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations.
likbez -> Sandwichman... October 24, 2016 at 06:05 PM
"I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."
Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call
the "Vichy left" essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their
'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protected it, everybody else be damned.
Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative
of "creative class".
Essentially the behavior the we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".
More "paranoid claptrap" (or should that be Clappertrap?): Edward Snowden: "...the breaking
point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath
to Congress. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back."
Private hackers may be tired of all this Russia friendly "measured response" from the US government
and take the matter of retaliation into their own hands.
"Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee
in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans.
One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses
under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed
justice, and having given false testimony." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper
Oliver Stone's movie was pretty good. I agree with you that the hacked email are pretty "weak
sauce" for the Russians to risk a confrontation with the sole super power. It's possible given
that Putin was upset over Hillary backing the pro-democracy movement publically in recent elections.
"... I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato ..."
"... A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior. ..."
"... it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes. ..."
I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal
Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato.
Reply
Monday, October 24, 2016 at 02:11 PM
> ...some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about
re-assessing Nato.
A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight
I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part
of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior.
I can't claim that a mere mortal like me actually has the slightest clue what is really going
on. All I will hazard is that, whatever it is, it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation
schemes.
Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence
services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient
prior.
"... The Democratic nominee in the final debate reiterated her bellicose stance towards Syria. Combined with her 2003 vote for war in Iraq, and her central role in getting the U.S. into the 2011 war in Libya, Clinton could become the most hawkish candidate elected president in most Americans' lifetimes. ..."
"... Enforcing a no-fly zone is "basically an act of war," Michael Knights, a no-fly-zone expert at the Washington Institute told me in the run up to the Libyan war. ..."
"... "Hillary's War," was the Washington Post's headline for a flattering feature on the Secretary of State's central role in driving the U.S. to intervene in Libya's civil war in 2011. ..."
"... Clinton staff, published emails have shown, worked hard to get Clinton credit for the war. Clinton's confidante at the State Department Jake Sullivan drafted a memo on her "leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's Libya policy from start to finish." ..."
"... Hillary's war was illegal-because the administration never obtained congressional authorization for it-and it was also disastrous. "Libya is in a state of meltdown," John Lee Anderson wrote in the Atlantic last summer. ..."
"... Yet somehow, through three general election debates, she never got a single question on Libya. Consider that: a former Secretary of State touted a war as a central achievement of hers, is running on her foreign-policy chops, and she is escaping accountability for that disastrous war. ..."
"... Clinton, of course, also voted for the Iraq War in 2003. She says now she thinks that war was a mistake because it destabilized region. But somehow she doesn't apply that supposed lesson to Libya or to Syria. ..."
"... The pattern is clear: Hillary Clinton is consistently and maybe blindly pro-war. She is now the clear frontrunner to become our next president. The antiwar movement that flourished under President George W. Bush has disappeared under President Obama . Will it revive under Hillary? Will Republicans have the power or the desire to check her ambitious interventionism. ..."
Hillary Clinton
can change her views in an instant on trade, guns, gay marriage, and all sorts of issues, but
she's consistent in this: she wants war.
The Democratic nominee in the final debate reiterated her bellicose stance towards Syria. Combined
with her 2003 vote for war in Iraq, and her central role in getting the U.S. into the 2011 war in
Libya, Clinton could become the most hawkish candidate elected president in most Americans' lifetimes.
"I am going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria," Clinton said
Wednesday night. Totally separate from the fight against ISIS, Clinton's "no-fly zones and safe havens"
are U.S. military intervention in the bloody and many-sided conflict between Syria's brutal government,
terrorist groups, and rebel groups.
Enforcing a no-fly zone is "basically an act of war," Michael Knights, a no-fly-zone expert at
the Washington Institute told me in the run up to the Libyan war. Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate that a no-fly zone created "the
potential of a direct conflict with the Syrian integrated air defense system or Syrian forces or,
by corollary, a confrontation with the Russians."
Defense Secretary Ash Carter testified in the same hearing that "safe zones" would require significant
U.S. boots on the ground.
So while Hillary says she doesn't want war with Russia or Syria, or boots on the ground in Syria,
she pushes policies that the Pentagon says risk war and require boots on the ground.
Hillary showed that same cavalier attitude toward war earlier this decade, laughingly
declaring "we came, we
saw, he died." This was her version of George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment, and Libya
was her smaller - and less legal - version of Bush's Iraq War.
"Hillary's War," was the Washington Post's headline for a flattering feature on the Secretary
of State's central role in driving the U.S. to intervene in Libya's civil war in 2011.
Clinton staff, published emails have shown, worked hard to get Clinton credit for the war.
Clinton's confidante at the State Department Jake Sullivan drafted a memo on her "leadership/ownership/stewardship
of this country's Libya policy from start to finish."
Sullivan listed, point-by-point, how Clinton helped bring about and shape the war. Before Obama's
attack on Moammar Gadhafi, "she [was] a leading voice for strong UNSC action and a NATO civilian
B5 protection mission," the memo explained.
Hillary's war was illegal-because the administration never obtained congressional authorization
for it-and it was also disastrous. "Libya is in a state of meltdown," John Lee Anderson wrote in
the Atlantic last summer.
ISIS has spread, no stable government has arisen, and the chaos has led to refugee and terrorism
crises.
Clinton nevertheless calls her war "smart power at its best," declaring during the primary season,
"I think President
Obama made the right decision at the time."
Yet somehow, through three general election debates, she never got a single question on Libya.
Consider that: a former Secretary of State touted a war as a central achievement of hers, is running
on her foreign-policy chops, and she is escaping accountability for that disastrous war.
Clinton, of course, also voted for the Iraq War in 2003. She says now she thinks that war
was a mistake because it destabilized region. But somehow she doesn't apply that supposed lesson
to Libya or to Syria.
The pattern is clear:
Hillary Clinton
is consistently and maybe blindly pro-war. She is now the clear frontrunner to become our next
president. The antiwar movement that flourished under President George W. Bush has disappeared under
President Obama
. Will it revive under Hillary? Will Republicans have the power or the desire to check her ambitious
interventionism.
If Hillary wins big and sweeps in a Senate majority with her, we could be in for four more years
of even more war.
Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at
[email protected]. His column appears
Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.
LOL! "Very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick."
Putin/Russia were by far the most mentioned topics at the debates...yet EMichael has the naivety
to assert that cold war tactics don't matter. What a rube!
As usual, EMichael is as uninformed as ever. For his information, Russia/Putin were mentioned
178 times in the 3 debates, topping the list of topics covered.
By comparison, climate change got four mentions, poverty 10, and US economic performance--hold
onto your hats!--didn't make the list. NSA snooping didn't get mentioned either.
So, EMichael, if Russia/Putin don't matter to voters, why did candidates talk so much about
it? Oh, I know, to distract attention from more serious issues that their paymasters didn't want
them to talk about!
Clinton had attracted a lot of centrist Republicans to her campaign, and I think the hawkish and
old school foreign policy stance has something to do with it.
"... Just a re-post from the last thread to the new . "In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers that he's been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United States and Russia. ..."
Just a re-post from the last thread to the new . "In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox
News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers
that he's been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United
States and Russia.
"... Now the system faces exhaustion, discreditation, crisis and when the masses turn to radical demands on their wealth and power the elite turns to the popular prejudice it holds in the palm of its hand: the lust for war. ..."
"... in a system where state power engineers a national market in a competitive world wide economic system, said state powers will pursue the competition by multifarious means, including state violence, a competition leading to negative outcomes. That, in other words, the breakdown of the general peace between the great empires was an inevitability, even if the date was an accident found by sleepwalkers. No doubt the notion seems outre for those who believe at heart in the magic of the market. ..."
"... I confess it's hard for me to grasp why the experience of the Great War would be internalized as a lesson by today's leaders by what mechanism? They have no direct experience of it at all. The horror of the war is so remote as to reside in the realm of fantasy or fiction. ..."
"... As to the consequences, today's leaders and war advocates of whom you speak reside in countries that are by and large the beneficiaries of past wars. ..."
"... Since you seem to be interested in the causes of wars, wonder if you are familiar with John Swomley's work. ..."
"... All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit from Iraqi oil and whatever was expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that could have been more efficiently handled, but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war. The real profit was the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights of the American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there, and why, if our elites persist, we might go to war with Russia or China. ..."
"... The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards doubling down. This operates on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication of those involved in the decision to start the conflict. There is also the horror that if you end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the families of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very bad for your political future). ..."
"... Japan currently has a constitution that makes war illegal. ..."
"... John Quiggin- The problem I was trying to suggest was that of presentism. ..."
I've written a lot here about the disaster of the Great War, and the moral culpability of all those
who brought it about and continued it. It's fair to say, I think, that the majority of commenters
have disagreed with me and that many of those commenters have invoked some form of historical relativism,
based on the idea that we shouldn't judge the rulers (or for that matter the public) of 1914 on the
same criteria we would apply to Bush, Blair and their supporters.
It's fascinating therefore to read Henry Reynolds' latest book, Unnecessary Wars
about Australia's participation in the Boer War, and realise that the arguments for and against
going to war then were virtually the same as they are now. The same point is made by Douglas Newton
in Hell-Bent:
Australia's leap into the Great War . He shows how, far from loyally following Britain into a
regrettably necessary war, leading members of the Australian political and military class pushed
hard for war. In Newtown's telling, the eagerness of pro-war Dominion governments helped to tip the
scales in the British public debate and in the divided Liberal candidate. I don't have the expertise
to assess this, but there's no escaping the echoes of the push towards the Iraq war in 2002 and early
2003, when this blog was just starting out.
The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914, just as
the case against slavery was developed and argued in the US before 1861. Those who were on the wrong
side can't be excused on the grounds that they were people of their time.
The only defence that can be made is that those who were eager for war in 1914 had not experienced
the disaster of the Great War and its consequences. The failure of today's war advocates to learn
from this disaster makes their position that much worse. But the same is true of anyone defending
the warmakers of 1914 on any grounds other than that of their ignorance.
The Napoleonic Wars were no more remote from 1914 than the First World War is from today. If it's
reasonable to expect modern leaders to remember the Somme, you can damned well blame Kaiser Wilhelm
for not remembering Austerlitz. (Not really meaning to single him out there; I'm pretty sure that
everybody had at least one "whoopsie, got a few tens of thousands of our boys killed there" moment
between 1799-1815.)
Jerry Vinokurov 10.22.16 at 7:26 am
I forget, did CT ever have a symposium on Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers ?
I'm surprised I haven't run into some godawful right-revisionist arguing the allies were on the
side of the angels in the great war. No doubt one will present themselves in the comments.
According to wiki, the Boer War cost £200 million (£22 billion @ 2015). Annual SA gold exports
were $3.8 billion USD in 2005. Platinum is similar, diamonds, uranium and chromium significant
too. So at the basic level of imperial arithmetic, the claim it was unprofitable would seem to
be wrong.
In contrast, the same claim about the Iraq war would be clearly right. Even if you teleported
the entire Iraqi oil reserves into a big tank in the midwest, you could barely sell them at a
price that would break even on the war.
Which argument is right, and which is wrong, would seem to be at the heart of the issue. In
contrast, whether or not you can find someone who made a particular argument doesn't seem that
significant. People in the past didn't know the future; some of them will have been wrong about
it.
Placeholder 10.22.16 at 11:16 am
Timothy@3
You haven't run into David Cameron; "We should be clear that world war one was fought in a just
cause and that our ancestors thought it would be bad to have a Prussian-dominated Europe."
John@0
This blog was created in the Iraq War period when the venture was mounted as the height of ideological
preciousness and in the luxurious excess of Aussenpolitik . As before the belle epoque
of decades of peace, progress and the liberal way is perished, rather, swallowed up and lost
in the infernal device they set running for their ends.
The scene has changed fundamentally. The six weeks' march to Paris has grown into a world
drama. Mass slaughter has become the tiresome and monotonous business of the day and the end
is no closer. Bourgeois statecraft is held fast in its own vise. The spirits summoned up can
no longer be exorcised. Gone is the euphoria.
Gone the patriotic noise in the streets, the chase after the gold-colored automobile, one
false telegram after another, the wells poisoned by cholera, the Russian students heaving bombs
over every railway bridge in Berlin, the French airplanes over Nuremberg, the spy hunting public
running amok in the streets, the swaying crowds in the coffee shops with ear-deafening patriotic
songs surging ever higher, whole city neighborhoods transformed into mobs ready to denounce,
to mistreat women, to shout hurrah and to induce delirium in themselves by means of wild rumors.
Gone, too, is the atmosphere of ritual murder, the Kishinev air where the crossing guard
is the only remaining representative of human dignity.
-"Junius"
Now the system faces exhaustion, discreditation, crisis and when the masses turn to radical
demands on their wealth and power the elite turns to the popular prejudice it holds in the palm
of its hand: the lust for war.Innenpolitik has returned.
The Second International, which had bravely fought and won for the International Worker's Day
on May 1st and International Women's Day on March 8th was swallowed and consumed by the hunger
for patriotism and war. The whole conference voting for international peace and solidarity and
every constituent party captured by its own 'social patriotism.' Lenin falling of his chair at
the news the whole German SDPer to vote for war credits (save Karl Liebknecht). Keir Hardie died
a broken man.
And many of us still say the universal conflagration the lights that went and the world-fire
that was set on August 1, 1914 did not burn out until August 15, 1945. That Hiroshima air.
Working men and working women! Mothers and fathers! Widows and orphans! Wounded and crippled!
We call to all of you who are suffering from the war and because of the war: Beyond all borders,
beyond the reeking battlefields, beyond the devastated cities and villages Proletarians of
all countries, unite!
Lenin et al., Zimmerwald, 1915.
ZM 10.22.16 at 11:49 am
John Quiggin,
"He shows how, far from loyally following Britain into a regrettably necessary war, leading
members of the Australian political and military class pushed hard for war. "
But Australia didn't have conscription for the First World War, and also there was a national
vote allowed on the matter of conscription. So even if some people did push hard for war, there
were a lot of Australians who pushed back against the war drive.
In the town I grew up in one of the big hills overlooking the main street was turned into a
white quartz rock billboard with VOTE NO for conscription, although this same hill had a quartz
rock V on it at the end of WWII.
I think its difficult sometimes judging if wars are necessary. It can be difficult to decide
about a war at the start, and easier to decide about it afterwards unfortunately.
I remember first really learning about the First World War in any detail from The Anne Of Green
Gables series when I was a kid. The final proper book in the series ends with the war, and it
starts with the young men all sort of thinking of the bravery and so on, and ends with them dying
or wounded mostly, although its set at home with the women and older people and children hearing
the news and waiting for the war to end. There is a later book in the series part based in the
early days of the Second World War, with a lot of bitterness about war in contrast to the WWI
book.
But I couldn't really say that WWII shouldn't have been fought by the Allies. But a lot of
the information I have to decide that WWII was a just war, if there can be just wars, is based
on information that came to light during the war or after the war.
I didn't agree with the war in Afghanistan and went on at least one march against it but I
had to think about it a lot and wasn't sure at first, since the Taliban were so terrible, and
I had no idea it would turn into this protracted extended group of wars in the Middle East.
But I read something by Kim Beazley saying he already committed Australia to following America
to war in the Middle East when he was Defence Minister in a conversation with someone from the
USA Government that he didn't realise the significance of at the time.
So it would seem that Australia was already committed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq before
they even started.
I would like to see a reappraisal of security policy generally really. The situation with China
and America has calmed down since a few years ago, but still has the prospects to be unsettling.
And I don't like what's happening with America and Russia at the moment, and Julie Bishop the
Australian Foreign Minister said she witnessed a discussion about Syria where trust had completely
broken down and she thought that all options need to be on the table to stop destruction now,
including no arms sales to Syrian groups. They might not have many munitions factories of their
own if other countries stopped supplying them with weapons and ammunition.
Looking at the Amazon page on The Sleepwalkers, they describe it as a study of how "well-intentioned"
people it is generally felt that national power and prestige and prosperity are good things to
intend. The British Empire in particular was deemed to be an amazingly good thing for humanity,
an idea revived for popular consumption in steampunk. And this is doubly true I think when somehow
one nation's place in the sun is a bad intention, yet an empire whose place is under the noonday
sun, everywhere in the world when it is local noon. Yet if you reversed the proposition, it would
be just as senseless. Moralizing about individual psychology, contra Corey Robin, just doesn't
seem to be all that enlightening.
I suppose it's possible Clark was misrepresented. But the commercial interest in bottom lining
the selling point makes it seem unlikely. Also, looking at the table of contents, the chapter
and section titles suggest the book neglects Anglo-French tensions (Fashoda seems to be missing,)
the whole Russian-Japanese war and subsequent revolution, the Austro-Hungarian seizures of the
Sanjak and Bosnia. The Venezuelan crisis of 1902? At least one of the Moroccan crises and one
of the Balkan wars gets into the table of contents.
Still, despite the obvious usefulness of examining the particular crisis that led to the general
catastrophe, it is not at all clear that Clark has any notion that any of these crises could have
led to war. Nor does Clark seem to have a notion that maybe, in a system where state power
engineers a national market in a competitive world wide economic system, said state powers will
pursue the competition by multifarious means, including state violence, a competition leading
to negative outcomes. That, in other words, the breakdown of the general peace between the great
empires was an inevitability, even if the date was an accident found by sleepwalkers. No doubt
the notion seems outre for those who believe at heart in the magic of the market.
The OP's concern with the moral responsibility for the war seems to focus solely on one train
of events that happened to result in a bad accident, rather than a bad system that would inevitably
break down. The comparison to American slavery is suggestive. To avoid the Civil War, the slavers
would have had to give up their property and power. To avoid the Great War, the rulers would have
had to give up their empires. States would have to forego the good intentions of defending their
national interests by all means necessary. Like the slave power in America, though we may wisely
declare after the fact their surrender will ultimately benefit even them, however shall we teach
them this wisdom in defiance of their daily experience? How shall it profit the rulers to retain
their souls if they lose the world?
chris y 10.22.16 at 12:21 pm
mjfgates @1
I was told that until the Great War, the Napoleonic Wars were colloquially referred to as "The
Great War". So, not forgotten.
"The only defence that can be made is that those who were eager for war in 1914 had not experienced
the disaster of the Great War and its consequences. The failure of today's war advocates to learn
from this disaster makes their position that much worse."
I confess it's hard for me to grasp why the experience of the Great War would be internalized
as a lesson by today's leaders by what mechanism? They have no direct experience of it at all.
The horror of the war is so remote as to reside in the realm of fantasy or fiction.
As to the
consequences, today's leaders and war advocates of whom you speak reside in countries that are
by and large the beneficiaries of past wars. The US, UK, Germany, France, Austria, Italy, Belgium,
The Netherlands these countries are the very definition of wealth and prosperity. Russia is
wealthy and prosperous compared to most other countries, as is Turkey.
Why should leaders of such
countries eschew war on the basis of experience? They have essentially no negative experience
of it at all, and other people's negative experience of it is hardly transferable over a gap of
100 years.
Placeholder 10.22.16 at 1:02 pm
"But Australia didn't have conscription for the First World War, and also there was a national
vote allowed on the matter of conscription. So even if some people did push hard for war, there
were a lot of Australians who pushed back against the war drive."
Isn't that the point? The 'british-to-their-bootstraps' establishment wanted to harvest the youth
for the most threatening war Europe had ever seen and the 'actually I'm Catholic and I'm here
cause you deported my dad' brigades forced and won a referendum against it in Australia.
And Quebec
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1917
And Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1918
The fact that they failed is not the point. The fact that Gough Whitlam, *cough*, Balibo Five
*cough cough* ahem that's the point.
"But I couldn't really say that WWII shouldn't have been fought by the Allies."
The 'agonizing quandary' of whether America should have gone to war is somewhat undermined by
Nazi Germany declaring war on them and the moral complusion 'we must do something' might perhaps
be undermined by France doing something and being utterly trounced. Finally the blinding raging
sanctimony of the warmongers 'but how can you be pacifist when Hitler is attacking you!!!?!' is
a little undermined by the fact that, yes, a global warmonger out to conquer everything in his
path will actually be attacking you and not by permanent metaphorical extension. "and Putin-Darmok
and Jalad at Tanagra, Appeasement Gerry Adams Munich".
Since you seem to be interested in the causes of wars, wonder if you are familiar with John Swomley's
work. Since I only became aware of him through a fluke (happened to be with someone getting an
email (believe it was from Elise Boulding) announcing John's death. He was surprised I wasn't
familiar with his work , and since he had worked with Elise and her husband Kenneth in Kansas
City at FOR Peace Center, I looked into it.
I was so impressed I have read most of John's work.
I highly recommend at least "American Empire-the Political Ethics of Twentieth Century Conquests"
[ http://bit.ly/2esBKnC ] . Along the lines
of AJ Taylor, it pretty much does away with the "devil theory of international relations" and
lies to rest MANY previous myths I was unaware I held.
The first eye opener was the attack on
Pearl Harbor, the US equivalent of the Reichtags fire. John made a passing reference that the
two leading newspapers in Honolulu, had in fact headlined "Kurusu Bluntly Warned Nation Ready
For Battle- Japanese May Strike Over The Weekend" on Sunday, November 31, 1941.
I was VERY skeptical,
but turns out, not only is this true, [ http://bit.ly/1zuS3nb
] but so were most of his other assertions on causes and events leading to war.
Placeholder 10.22.16 at 1:22 pm
Benk@7 "I'm just wondering why the 1861 sentence didn't read 'the push towards war' instead of
'the case against slavery.' After all, the theme of the whole post "
See that's what I'm talking about. The Confederacy attacked the vestiges of the Union. Like
with 'but WWII' this latest very serious and very necessary war of choice is excused by constant
metaphorical extension from an unimpeachable war of alien aggression. Anti-militarism and Anti-imperialism
is always obligated to the logic of pacifism.
The situation for the various participants varies.
Serbia, Belgium and France were directly attacked and had no choice other than fighting or
surrender. Serbia had agreed to seventeen of the twenty one demands in full, three with reservations
and rejected one. Germany and Austria-Hungary were the aggressors and actively sought war.
Italy and Japan were essentially opportunistic, both feeling that they could make gains at
a relatively low cost, Japan correctly, Italy incorrectly.
Britain, Russia and the USA were in a position of either fighting or suffering a major foreign
policy defeat.
Britain had guaranteed Belgian independence and the brutal German invasion (some of the atrocity
stories were false, many were not) convinced Lloyd George that war was a moral imperative, while
the attack on France was insufficient. He and his immediate supporters gave the Cabinet a pro-war
majority. So it really was about Belgium. This was on top of a German naval programme obviously
aimed at Britain. If German aggression were not stopped now then they would be harder to stop
next time if France and Russia were German clients.
Russia faced the destruction of its ally Serbia even after Serbia had agreed nearly all of
Austria-Hungary's demands.
The USA had got Germany to halt unrestricted submarine warfare after the Lusitania only by
threatening war. The resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare left them with a credibility
problem if no declaration was made.
I'm not very familiar with what happened with the Ottoman empire.
The view that the Entante were morally right is pretty much the consensus in military history.
The popular view is extremely dated and not well supported by evidence.
The desire to avoid another world war was one of the reasons that Britain and France were so
reluctant to oppose Germany during the 1930s. Faced by a relentless aggressor it is normally better
to fight now with as allies than later alone.
Kim Beazley was the Defence Minister in previous Labour governments, not in the Liberal Howard
Government that was in power during the starts of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. It was more a
strategic commitment rather than a declaration of war:
"The United States had regarded our contribution to the Tanker War [part of the Iran-Iraq war]
activity as an earnest of good faith that new Australian defence policies still contemplated an
ability to respond positively to allies.
I did then recollect a call from him sometime in October 1987 when he had opened:
"You remember that conversation we had last year when you said that even though your forces
were structured to defend Australia, you would still work elsewhere if your ally needed you?
Well, this is the call."
The conversation he was alluding to was a fierce argument before the White Paper was produced
but after the publication of Paul Dibb's Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities.
I had not understood at the time of his call how much of a test he considered it. In his mind
it was evidently a little more than normal banter."
The role of Commonwealth and Empire troops in Britain's wars is immense and complex. On simple
terms, elites in Commonwealth nations often shared values, politics, and economic interests with
the 'mother nation' and each other. We should not, therefore, be surprised to find elites in Australia
cheering for a war championed by elites in London. Those further down the pecking order were often
hostile to the idea of going to war. In India, a sizeable minority elected to fight alongside
the Japanese against Britain.
As for learning from mistakes, we clearly haven't. It's too easy to forget how Americans of
all political stripes cheered once the bombs started landing in Iraq in 2003. Ignored now by many
supporting the only candidate directly involved in America's 21st century wars of choice is the
fact that America under the Democrats is now fighting five wars, or the same war on five different
fronts. None of which is likely to end in time for the Peace Prize President to declare victory,
although the pliant media may oblige with a 'thank goodness we brought that part of Bush's mess
to an end.
The press seems much more interested in securing victory for the Democratic candidate before
the voters get their chance. A couple of days ago it was difficult to see any other outcome. That's
no longer the case. The race had tightened again.
Try as many might to forget the last 12 years of war under two two-term presidents from two
different parties with the prospect of at least another four from at least one of the two candidates,
ordinary Americans seem quite ready to take a break.
On a personal note. The one lesson learned from the Great Was in my own family was to avoid
war if at all possible. My grandfather wounded severely twice and sent back to the front in both
instances did all he could to ensure his own sons delayed enlisting as long as possible.
Jake Gibson 10.22.16 at 2:38 pm
World War 2 and possible the American Civil War are just about the only wars that I can think
of that might qualify as a "necessary war". I have long held that there are no "just wars", only
horrible wars and even worse wars.
you can damned well blame Kaiser Wilhelm for not remembering Austerlitz.
Or at least JenaFranz Joseph and Nicholas were the ones to remember Austerlitz
Gareth Wilson 10.22.16 at 6:36 pm
I haven't seen any alternate history stories where the British Empire decides not to fight the
Boer War and leaves Orange Free State and the Republic of Transvaal independent. Of course, there's
probably enough grim dystopias already. And maybe this covers it well enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hek-XimOhGA
"All history is contemporary history," the Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce wrote nearly a
hundred years ago. Modern historians' agree to some extent with this, aware that the writing of
history is an imperfect reconstruction of the past tainted with contemporary prejudices. Some
postmodern historians' go so far as to doubt whether anything approaching genuine knowledge of
the past is possible. But most people writing history today do engage to some degree in historical
relativism, aware that the past was to some extent unique. To start assigning moral responsibility
to past historical figures ignores what the study of history can truly offer. Looking at how historical
collective mentalities or institutions shaped individual actions doesn't just help us understand
past events, but also can make us more attuned to the existence of these complexities within society,
therefore helping us comprehend the present.
stevenjohnson 10.22.16 at 7:34 pm
Gareth Wilson @20 Well, there is the S.M. Stirling Draka series. From wikipedia, "The world of
the Domination diverges from our world at the time of the American Revolutionary War, when the
Netherlands declares war on Great Britain, resulting in the loss of its Cape Colony to the British.
After defeat in Revolutionary War, the Loyalists who historically went to Canada are instead resettled
in the new Crown Colony of Drakia (named after Sir Francis Drake) in South Africa, taking their
slaves with them. Thousands of Hessian German mercenaries who fought on the Loyalist side are
also paid off with land grants in the new colony. The Crown Colony of Drakia (later, the Dominion
of the Draka) is an aggressive militaristic slave-owning society, massively influenced by the
inherent racist attitudes of these American slave owner settlers that are allowed to run unchecked,
reinforced over the course of the late 18th and 19th century by 25,000 Icelanders fleeing their
island after the 1783-84 Volcanic devastation. French royalists, 150,000 defeated American Confederates
and other reactionary refugees also emigrate to the colony. The much earlier Dutch Boer settlers
are completely assimilated by these subsequent immigrants."
This doesn't sound like entertainment to me, so I haven't read a word.
All they had to do is remember the US Civil War. Horses charging into machine guns and repeating
rifles do not lead to longevity
Scott P. 10.22.16 at 8:44 pm
The difference with the Boer War is the Boers were not a threat to the peace and stability of
Europe, while the German military aristocracy certainly were.
The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914 . . .
Was it? I wonder about that.
Continuing the war , once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident
(which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral
culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. It is on this point that I think arguments from
before the war cannot have the weight the horror of experience must give them. Elite leadership
across Europe failed. It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power.
Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should
have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries
where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France. It is inexplicable,
really, unless you can see that the moral and practical case against war is not fully developed
between the wars; if there's a critique that made use of experience in its details in the 1920s
and 1930s and made itself heard, I missed it - it seems like opposites of such an appreciation
triumph.
And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? There's certainly a socialist
argument against war, based on the illegitimacy of war's class divisions, which were conveniently
exemplified in military rank and reactionary attitudes among the officer class. That internationalist
idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks. Universal conscription
in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the
horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived
conflicts with a decisive result.
bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:47 pm
Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements
that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged
they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their
ideas or arguments were.
Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics
of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore
Roosevelt - no little irony in either case. Without looking it up I recall Barbara Tuchman using
the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization,
as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war.
I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for
a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it
engaged by fully developed argument? When?
The long effort by reactionary forces to assemble a coalition capable of defeating Napoleon
had created in Europe what for a time was called the Concert of Europe. Austria, Prussia and Russia
initially cooperated in suppressing liberal and nationalist aspirations and that effort gradually
morphed into efforts to harness or channel rising liberalism and nationalism and industrial power.
It was the evolved apparatus descended from Metternich's Congress of Vienna thru Bismarck's Congress
of Berlin that made wars brief and generally decisive in regard to some policy end. The long list
of successive crises and brief wars that stevenjohnson references above - often cited as evidence
of the increasing fragility of the general peace - could just as well be cited as evidence for
the continued effectiveness of the antique Concert of Europe in containing and managing the risk
of general war. (Fashoda 1898, Venezuela 1902, Russo-Japanese War 1905, Agadir 1911, Balkan Wars
1911-1912 - it can be a very long list).
It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and
brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus
of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation
of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes. If this was the institutional program produced
by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed
or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences.
It was one of the mechanisms for peace by international law - the neutrality of Belgium mutually
guaranteed by Britain and Germany in the Treaty of London 1839 - that triggered Britain's entry
as an Allied Power and general war. There is, of course, no particular reason Australia should
have taken an interest in Belgium's neutrality, but it was that issue that seemed to compel the
consensus of opinion in favor of war in Britain's government.
The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with
primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create
a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.)
What I don't find is the alternative lever or mechanism at the ready, put in place by this
fully developed argument against war. The mechanism in place was the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed
by international law (arguably reinforced in the stipulations of the Hague Conference of 1907).
If Germany doesn't violate Belgian neutrality, the result in the West at least is stalemate as
France and Germany are evenly matched across their narrow and mostly impassable frontier; in the
East, Russia must concede to Germany even as Austria must concede to Russia; - instead of a general
conflagration, the result is another negotiated settlement of some sort, perhaps arbitrated by
Britain or the U.S.
The urgent questions of the day regarding the organization of modern liberal polities in the
territories of Ottoman Turkey, Hapsburg Austria and Czarist Russia - what is the strongly argued
and fully developed case there? How is the cause of Polish nationalism, or Finnish nationalism
or Yugoslav nationalism to be handled or managed without violence and war? The antique system
of a Concert of Europe had kinda sorta found a way by means of short and decisive engagements
followed by multi-power negotiation, a pattern that had continued with the gradual emergence of
Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania. But, where was the argument for managing irredentism and nationalist
aspiration peacefully?
I don't see how you can get an adequate account of Clark's book just by reading an Amazon blurb
and glancing at a table of contents. Your synopsis is totally mistaken (I also don't recall any
mention of "well-intentioned people" in the book).
What Clark has done was to write an extremely detailed diplomatic history of the July Crisis
and the events preceding it. He gets into some depth on questions like the conflicts over colonies
(Fashoda is discussed, starting on p. 132), but he also makes the strong case that this conflict
was only one of the contributing factors to the war. His major focus is on the structures of the
foreign policy apparatus within the government of each of the participants, and the interactions
between the various factions both within and across states. No one comes out looking particularly
good from this analysis, but it's not as simplistic as saying that the conflict was predetermined
by struggles over capital or whatever; in fact, there were many potential avenues that could have
avoided war, and it took the coincidence of some really terrible bluffs being made and called
by lots of different people in order for the war to actually happen. I'm happy to cite specific
examples if people are interested because I have the book handy.
The Sleepwalkers is really a valuable book; it taught me a great deal that I did not
know before (which, granted, may not mean much), but it also really changed the way that I think
about WWI. The standard explanation that is often given in college courses, and which pervades
the popular imagination, is that either the Germans were wicked mustache-twirling villains, or
that the conflict was structurally predetermined by the alliance system. Clark makes a very convincing
case that this is incorrect, that in addition to the alliance system which of course provided
the framework within which foreign policy decisions were being made, there was a great deal of
contingency in the decision to go to war, and that the key decision makers were acting under many
misapprehensions of both their own abilities and the abilities and information available to their
counterparts. It's really worth your while to read it if you're interested in the causes of the
war.
Brett Dunbar 10.22.16 at 9:43 pm
One reason for the high casualties in the American Civil War was that the armies had an unusual
habit of marching to fairly close range and then firing volley after volley from short range while
static. This surprised foreign military observers who were used to troops firing a volley then
charging into the enemy line.
The ACW had had an exceptionally high proportion of casualties
due to small arms at about 80%. It seems that having a bayonet helps even thought it was rarely
used directly as the soldiers rarely hung around to get stabbed. Charging directly into the enemy
formation while you would take heavy casualties if you got there you could scatter the enemy force
and win. This had been effective during the Russo-Japanese War, at the time the most recent great
power war.
All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit
from Iraqi oil and whatever was expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction,
the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that could have been more efficiently handled,
but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war. The real profit was
the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights
of the American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there,
and why, if our elites persist, we might go to war with Russia or China.
The good news is that, because of the unrelenting depredations by American elites on the treasure
and rights of the people, the United States is increasingly unable to wage war effectively. The
bad news is that our elites are too blind to see this.
America: Consuming your future today.
dpm 10.22.16 at 11:19 pm
The last big war in western europe prior to 1914 was the Franco-Prussian nonsense in 1870, and
that started in August and was over by Christmas, so maybe it wasn't crazy to expect a short war.
I can understand the argument that going to war was wrong in 1914, and certainly agree that
continuing it was morally bankrupt after the nature of the struggle became apparent. But I don't
understand the argument that the decision to fight was justified in 1939 if it was not justified
in 1914. In both cases, Australia followed the UK, and in both cases the UK fought to prevent
German domination of Europe, with the proximate cause being the invasion of a neutral country.
Of course, with hindsight Hitler looks much worse than the Kaiser, but its not clear that was
true from the standpoint of 1939. At that point, Hitler had never committed genocide, but the
Kaiser had (in Namibia).
John Quiggin 10.23.16 at 12:24 am
erichwwk @13 Thanks for the suggestion of Swomley.
George: This encapsulates the problems I have with historical relativism.
"To start assigning moral responsibility to past historical figures ignores what the study
of history can truly offer. "
But when does someone become a historical figure? Is GW Bush historical? Kissinger? Mao? Eisenhower?
And if we approach history with a strictly non-judgemental attitude to its actors, how does
this help us form judgements about what should be done in the present.
Mark Pontin 10.23.16 at 1:10 am
There's a book called THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE MACHINE GUN by John Ellis, that's very insightful
about how WWI turned out like it did.
Very likely some of you have read it. For those who haven't, I recommend it.
The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards
doubling down. This operates on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication
of those involved in the decision to start the conflict. There is also the horror that if you
end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the families
of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very
bad for your political future).
And of course if you quit, what is to stop the enemy from extracting reparations or worse from
you, because in his eyes, you are the criminal party. Much easier to try yet one more offensive,
or to lure a formerly neutral party into joining in and opening up another front, which you hope
will break the stalemate.
The thing that appalls me so much about the Great War, is how so many nations were dragged
in, by promises of booty. In many ways it resembles the Peloponnisian war, in its inability to
allow neutrals to be neutrals.
kidneystones 10.23.16 at 1:24 am
The title of the OP encapsulates the problem. I'd argue that all wars fit the bill.
The assumption that some wars are necessary and others are not is built into the discussion
and is, for me, the central problem with this and all other discussions on war.
It isn't at all clear to me that any wars are 'necessary.' That is not to say that coercive
violence is obsolete and that pacifism is the goal. That seems to me highly unrealistic.
Contra JQm we do not need to understand history to understand that all future wars are the
worst possible solution to any conflict. The problem is that when the powerful can impose their
will upon the weak they do, and will, unless the weak band together to reduce the power of the
strong.
Japan currently has a constitution that makes war illegal.
Surely this form of constraint on state violence should be the norm, not the exception. The
fact that so few nations are interested in making war illegal speaks volumes about our general
commitment to peaceful conflict resolution. States want a monopoly on violence within the state,
but in most 'civilized' societies a host of other institutions and statutes exist to constrain,
not eliminate, capricious and unjustified incidents of state violence. Yes, 'bad' actors exist
and have to be dealt with. Our current 'solution' to the bad actor problem within states is to
arm and fund them.
We invent fantasy patriots, rather than recognize that most/all of these individuals are self-interested
individuals seeking to profit from destroying/changing the status quo.
Ben Franklin was a British slave-owner and capitalist who spent his years in the mother nation
lobbying the British parliament on behalf of special interests and others seeking to enrich themselves.
When better opportunities arrived Franklin and other self-interested actors seized the moment
by force. One can make a persuasive case that Franklin and others were right to do so.
We are not, however, living in the latter stages of the 18th century. People do learn from
history, or can. We have numerous examples of how the state is not serving the interests of ordinary
citizens. In that sense little has changed since the time of Franklin. The US and Russia may be
the last nations to surrender the 'right' to attack and wage war on 'enemies.'
That does not mean the other nations should not renounce this 'right' to attack other nations
and wage war. There have some rare instances where international police actions/wars have curtailed
massacres. Interventions too often occur too late. A great many 'good' state actors such as Sweden
and Canada are deeply committed to the international sale of weapons, whilst making weepy noises
about the deplorable level of gun violence in the US, the free world's favorite whipping boy.
If any of the major powers in the war had quit in 1915, would the consequences at home have been
as limited as simply some leaders losing their positions? The spectre of revolution was haunting
the continent, and military failure is associated with that revolution happening in Germany and
the USSR. Perhaps the leaders of France and Germany decided not to back down in 1915 because they
thought that was a risk?
(I don't know how much the fear of revolution exercised the western leadership at that time,
so this is a genuine question).
LFC 10.23.16 at 1:47 am
There is not too much point in arguing about whether "the case against war was fully developed"
before 1914, because "fully developed" means different things to different people.
There were various sorts of arguments against war in reasonably wide circulation before 1914
- and this fact is important from a number of standpoints - but there was also a lot of war-glorification
in elite and intellectual circles. The devastation wrought by WW1 had an enormous impact on the
way war was thought about and discussed in elite European circles: with the exception of certain
sectors in Germany and perhaps one or two other places, it was hard after WW1 to find praise for
war in elite circles as being "healthy," "cleansing," "natural," "good for the race," "inevitable,"
and so on.
This kind of language, so easy to find in elite discourse before 1914, largely (not completely,
but largely) vanished from elite (and a lot of popular) discourse after WW1. Plenty of Anglophone
and other intellectuals before 1914 spoke about war in Social Darwinist, quasi-eugenicist terms
(although some pro-eugenicists, such as David Starr Jordan, opposed war on the grounds that it
would disproportionately kill "the best" of "the race").
'Pro-war' arguments were still made in various ways and contexts after 1918, of course, but
the character and language of those arguments changed. There were some who still adhered to the
Social Darwinist notions prevalent before the war, such as the Austro-Hungarian chief of staff,
who wrote in his memoirs after the war that it had been an inevitable result of "mankind's struggle
for existence."[*] But this kind of thinking, as already indicated, became much less prevalent
as the war dragged on and then after it ended.
---
[*] "It is in accordance with this great principle [i.e., mankind's struggle for existence]
that the catastrophe of the world war came about as a result of the motive forces in the lives
of states and peoples, like a thunderstorm which must by its nature discharge itself": Conrad
von Hoetzendorff, Aus meiner Dienstzeit , as quoted (and translated) in J. Joll, Europe
Since 1870 (Harper & Row, 1973), p.164.
Re the reference to "the motive forces in the lives of states and peoples" and the implication
that such "forces" must inevitably bring them into violent conflict: does anyone talk this way
any more? Afaik, not even writers for, e.g., The Weekly Standard or National Review
or Commentary or The American Conservative would write in this manner today.
Japan currently has a constitution that makes war illegal.
To go further it declares "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will
never be maintained." I know many Japanese who know that. I am yet to meet a German who can
provide even a garbled rendition of "Acts tending to and undertaken with intent to disturb the
peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for a war of aggression, shall be unconstitutional.
They shall be made a criminal offence. "
Gareth Wilson 10.23.16 at 6:08 am
It's more important that Japan has a public opinion that makes war unpopular.
37 Yes. And given that Japan has morphed from isolationist to empire builder and into the only
nation so far to arrive at this relatively enlightened state in only a century, or so,
I'd say the rest of us can give it at least a good go.
That topic never comes up, of course. Whatever good points a discussion on 'necessary' wars
may have, surely a better discussion is why any of us still consider all war to be anything but
a mark of failure.
38. Both are vital, but if I had to choose I'd agree. The problem is that Japan can look around
and see, with some justification, that practically no other nation sees the world the same way.
Peter T 10.23.16 at 8:56 am
faustusnotes
fear of "socialism" meaning, broadly, greater popular participation in politics was explicitly
a major factor in the German and Russian decisions for war. In both cases, they hoped victory
would shore up increasingly fragile conservative dominance. It also underlay British and French
attitudes. 1870-1914 was a very stressful time for elites.
1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some voices
in favour of negotiations, but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By the time
the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost. Fear of socialism was again a major
factor in the post-war settlements.
Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal
order. In the same way, the generation post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars as
the great disaster that shattered the happy old order. The extent of the damage and loss was much
the same in each, although World War I took 5 years to do what the French wars did in 25.
"Of course, with hindsight Hitler looks much worse than the Kaiser, but its not clear that
was true from the standpoint of 1939. At that point, Hitler had never committed genocide, but
the Kaiser had (in Namibia)."
Don't talk daft. Wilhelmine Germany was a polity that was heavily skewed towards the interests
of the aristocracies and big business, but it was also a state that respected the rule of law
and tolerated the existence of multiple political parties (including that of the organised working
class). There were no Nuremburg Laws against Jews, and German brutality in the colonies was hardly
worse than that of other empires (if anything, 'plucky little Belgium' treated its colonial subjects
the worst).
Your theory seems to come close to A.J.P. Taylor's bilge that Hitler was the logical continuation
of long-term German historical development.
Peter T 10.23.16 at 10:48 am
"Wilhelmine Germany was a polity that was heavily skewed towards the interests of the aristocracies
and big business, but it was also a state that respected the rule of law and tolerated the existence
of multiple political parties (including that of the organised working class)."
See Zabern Incident, Prussian three-class voting system, lack of control of Reichstag over
budgets or major policy areas, anti-socialist laws
Wilhelmine Germany was a complex polity, which somewhat resembled the modern US in its multiplicity
of veto points and the degree to which industrial, military and landowning elites held control
through back-channels and various institutional levers. Many of its mechanisms were deliberately
designed to provide the appearance, but not the substance, of parliamentary democracy. For instance,
the military took the largest share of the budget, but the responsible ministers were not accountable
to parliament (this is not to compare it to Hitler's regime).
"See Zabern Incident, Prussian three-class voting system, lack of control of Reichstag over
budgets or major policy areas, anti-socialist laws "
Well exactly, that is what I meant by 'heavily skewed towards the interests of aristocracies
and big business'. But all those instances are a drop in the ocean compared to Nazi Germany.
The complexity of Wilhelmine Germany was probably a result of the political failure of the
liberal bourgeoisie in Germany, and the fact that there were no major political rifts to shatter
the power of the aristocracy (it took until WWII to finally achieve this). Nevertheless, as Peter
T suggests, even though the Prussian monarchical regime retained the formal political ascendancy,
it took a byzantine institutional morass to keep different classes and political interests together,
and the Wilhelmine elite wasn't alone in seeking to maintain its position by recklessly fanning
the flames of national chauvinism. The irony was that 1914 proved that this policy was extraordinarily
successful in the short term and subsequent events showed that it was completely disastrous after
that.
George 10.23.16 at 12:24 pm
John Quiggin- The problem I was trying to suggest was that of presentism. This is an issue that
many university history departments take pains to caution their students about in courses on historiography.
Similarly these courses on historiography tend to teach that there is value in explaining the
present by looking at the past, but warn that by making past events serve present needs, history
can be distorted.
Personally I have found the essays of the late Tony Judt brilliant at explaining the present
by referring to history. In one of his essays on how the modern Belgian political system came
into being, Judt carefully dissected hundreds of years of economic, political and social to offer
an explanation. Obviously he was making a judgement call as to which facts of history were most
useful, served his purposes, but reading his essay the reader is aware that Judt is striving for
ojectivity, however elusive it might. To me this is the best kind of history writing. What the
reader chooses to do with this information, what judgements he or she might wish to make is another
matter.
German colonial policy was notably bad. German behaviour in Namibia was worse than almost any
other colonial administration. After Belgium seized Congo it had the worst record of any existing
regime.
Belgium took over Congo in 1908 before that it had been a private empire under the personal
rule of Leopold II until his behaviour led to the Belgian government confiscating it from him.
Belgian parliamentary rule, while at then bottom end of colonial administrations, was a pretty
big improvement.
Mike Schilling 10.23.16 at 6:03 pm
It seems to be received wisdom on all sides these days that Woodrow Wilson was a warmongering
hypocrite for running on a platform of peace and neutrality and then entering WWI shortly after
his reelection. But between sinking American merchant ships and conspiring with Mexico to support
an invasion of the US, I don't see that Germany gave him much choice.
Serbia, Belgium and France were directly attacked and had no choice other than fighting
or surrender. Serbia had agreed to seventeen of the twenty one demands in full, three with
reservations and rejected one.
This is a vast oversimplification especially as regards the ultimatum, as Clark makes very
clear. The ultimatum was delivered on July 23, 1914 and had 10 points (although I suppose depending
on how you count various subpoints you may get 21; this isn't especially relevant except that
I'm using 10 because that is Clark's enumeration of them). The particular sticking points for
the Serbian government were points 5 and 6, which demanded that Belgrade accept Austro-Hungarian
collaboration into the investigations of Serbian subversives (point 5) as well as into the assassination
itself (point 6). According to Clark, the initial memo circulated by Laza Pacu, who was acting
Serbian PM while the actual PM, Pasic, was campaigning for the upcoming elections, indicated that
Serbia could not possibly accede to the demands. While awaiting Pasic's return to Belgrade, Pacu
and the Prince Regent Alexander both visited Strandmann, the chief of the Russian mission, and
both insisted that they could not accept the ultimatum and sought assurances from Strandmann that
Russia would back them, even unto war (Alexander actually thought that Serbia should stall for
time, as a reply was expected within 48 hours). I quote Clark (p. 461):
All of this might seem to suggest that the Serbian political leadership came almost immediately
to the unanimous view that Serbia must resist and if necessary go to war. But these utterances
were all reported by Strandmann. It is likely that the desire to elicit Russian support encouraged
the ministers on hand in Belgrade to insist on the impossibility of acceptance. Other testimony
suggests that, among themselves, the decision-makers were deeply alarmed at the prospect of
an Austrian attack and saw no alternative to acceptance. The memory of October 1913, when Sazonov
[the Russian foreign minister] had advised Belgrade to back down in the face of an Austrian
ultimatum over Albania, was still fresh enough to nourish doubts about whether the Russians
would support Serbia in the current crisis. Ascertaining the attitude of France was difficult,
because the key French leaders were on their way back from Russia, and the French envoy Descos,
who for some time had been showing signs of strain, had collapsed and been recalled to Paris;
his replacement had not yet arrived.
Faced with this uncertainty, Pasic decided to stall until he could figure out what the Russians
would do. Regent Alexander telegrammed the Tsar, stating explicitly that Belgrade was prepared
to accept any points of the ultimatum "whose acceptance shall be advised by Your Majesty." Pasic
drafted a telegram to Serbian foreign missions indicating that Belgrade intended to offer "full
satisfaction" to Vienna and concede on all points. British correspondence from the same time indicates
that this would have included the contentious points 5 and 6.
At that point, a telegram arrived from Spalajkovic, the Serbian envoy to Russia, recounting
his conversation with Poincare (the French President) during the latter's state visit to the Tsar.
Spalajkovic reported that when he told Poincare that the situation in Belgrade was very bad, Poincare
told him, "We will help you improve it." Spalajkovic also communictated his conversation with
Sazonov, who had told him that the Russian Council of Ministers had condemned the ultimatum and
that Serbia could "count unofficially on Russian support," although there was no indication regarding
what form that support would take. A second telegram from Spalajkovic reported that Russian mobilization
might be imminent and that Russia would soon issue an official proclamation of support for Serbia.
Buoyed by the news from Russia, the Serbian government began drafting a reply to the Austrian
ultimatum. I won't get into the details of the reply, which are long, but the basic gist is that
Serbia pretended to accede to the Austrian demands, provided Austria supply conclusive evidence
on all points before any investigations would begin. I quote Clark again (p. 465):
The claim often made in general narratives that this reply represented an almost complete
capitulation to the Austrian demands is profoundly misleading. This was a document fashioned
for Serbia's friends, not for its enemy. It offered the Austrians amazingly little. Above all,
it places the onus on Vienna to drive ahead the process of opening up the investigation int
the Serbian background of the conspiracy, without, on the other hand, conceding the kind of
collaboration that would have enabled an effective pursuit of the relevant leads. In this sense
it represented a continuation of the policy the Serbian authorities had followed since 28 June:
flatly to deny any form of involvement and to abstain from any initiative that might be taken
to indicate the acknowledgment of such involvement. Many of the replies on specific points
opened up the prospect of long, querulous, and in all likelihood ultimately pointless negotations
with the Austrians over what exactly constituted 'facts and proofs' of irredentist propaganda
or conspiratorial activity by officers and officials. The appeal to 'international law' though
effective as propaganda, was pure obfuscation since there existed to international jurisprudence
for case of this kind and no international organs with the authority to resolve them in a legal
and binding way. Yet the text was perfectly pitched to convey the tone of voice of reasonable
statesmen in a condition of sincere puzzlement, struggling to make sense of outrageous and
unacceptable demands. This was the measured voice of the political, constitutional Serbia disavowing
any ties with its expansionist pan-Serbian twin in a manner deeply rooted in the history of
Serbian external relations. It naturally sufficed to persuade Serbia's friends that in the
face of such a full capitulation, Vienna had no possible ground for taking action.
In reality, then, this was a highly perfumed rejection on all points.
Continuing with Brett:
Germany and Austria-Hungary were the aggressors and actively sought war.
This is also deeply misleading and fails to take into account what Clark's research demonstrates,
which is that all of the foreign offices had various pro- and anti-war factions; this includes
Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, and Great Britain. I can't possibly do justice to the
full scope of Clark's evidence here, which spans literally hundreds of pages, but he goes to great
efforts to answer the question of who controlled foreign policy in each country. In France, for
example, a pro-war, anti-German faction, composed primarily of career foreign office civil servants
who, despite nominal subservience to the foreign secretary actually represented a kind of inner
circle that pursued its own ends, was consistently leaking anti-German slanders and pro-war propaganda
to the press. The British foreign office was likewise filled with with undersecretaries like Francis
Bertie and Arthur Nicolson, who controlled the information that reached Edward Grey in such a
way that it skewed the argument toward war. Of course Germany and Austria had their own pro- and
anti-war factions, but the simplistic painting of the two countries as "the aggressors" is a drastic
simplification of a hugely complex state of affairs.
Britain, Russia and the USA were in a position of either fighting or suffering a major foreign
policy defeat.
Again, the actual situation is far more complex. Clark says nothing about the US for the obvious
reason that the US had no meaningful participation in the July Crisis, but the situations in both
Britain and Russia were substantially more complicated. Grey was not necessarily predisposed to
war, and if he was, he had a very inconsistent way of showing it. He constantly offered ambiguous
assurances to his foreign service counterparts in both Germany and France, hinting that Britain
was likely to support France but also that there might be a way for it to remain neutral in a
conflict with Germany. Here's Clark again (p. 574):
Whichever view we take and the disagreement among historians is itself telling [ed: Clark
here is referring to the debate over documentary evidence of whether Grey "really did hold
up the prospect of British neutrality to Lichinowsky" (the German ambassador) or "perhaps he
was trying to accommodate his uncertainty about whether the British cabinet would back his
policy of support for France" (Grey having kept the actual cabinet from finding out about many
of the things he had hinted to the French) or "maybe Grey was not interested in neutrality
at all, but briefly came under pressure from his liberal imperialist ally, Lord Chancellor
Haldane, to find a way of preventing of delaying the commencement of hostilities between France
and Germany so that there would be time better to prepare and train the British Expeditionary
force."] it is clear that Grey's ambiguities were on the verge of becoming open contradictions.
To propose British neutrality, even in the face of a continental war involving France, would
have amounted to a crass reversal of the positions the foreign secretary had earlier adopted
so much so, indeed, that it is hard to believe that this was truly his intention. On the
other hand, the proposal that France and Germany should maintain an armed stand-off is unambiguously
instantiated in the documents. In a telegram dispatched to Bertie at 5.25 p.m. on 1 August,
Grey himself reported that he had put it to the German ambassador that 'after mobilisation
on the western frontier French and German armies should remain, neither crossing the border
so long as the other did not do so. I cannot say whether this would be consistent with French
obligations under here alliance.' But even this suggestion was bizarre. since it was based
on the supposition that France might be willing to abandon the Russian alliance Poincare and
his colleagues had worked so hard in recent years to reinforce. It suggests at best a very
weak grip on the realities of the wider political and military situation.
All the evidence seems to suggest that not only did Grey entirely misjudge what was happening
then, and what had been happening around him for years, but that until almost literally the last
minute he was waffling because he had no way of properly ascertaining the actual strength of his
position. For example, in a conversation with Paul Cambon, the French ambassador, on July 29,
he intimated that France was allowing itself to be "drawn into a quarrel which is not hers, but
in which, owing to her alliance, her honour and interest obliged her to engage," whereas Britain
was "free of engagements and would have to decide what British interests required the government
to do." He also claimed that it was British policy to avoid going to war over "a Balkan question."
Then two days later, when asked by Cambon directly whether Britain would help France if the latter
were attacked by Germany, he argued that the full Russian mobilization, which at this point was
in effect, was effectively forcing Germany to mobilize. Cambon himself was likewise acting on
the assumption that the Entente was much more binding than it actually was, and that it was an
instrument by which England intended to contain Germany, as per Clark (p. 539):
He failed to see that for British policy-makers, the Entente served more complex objectives."
It was, among other things, a means of deflecting the threat posed to the dispersed territories
of the British Empire by the power best placed to do them harm, namely Russia. One likely reason
for Cambon's misprision was that he came to depend too much on the assurances and advice of
the permanent under-secretary Sir Arthur Nicolson, who was passionately attached to the Russian
and the French connection and intent on seeing both hardened into a fully-fledged alliance.
But Nicolson, though influential, was not the arbiter of policy in London, and his views were
increasingly out of sync with the group around Grey, who were becoming increasingly distrustful
of Russia and increasingly open to a more pro-German (or at least less anti-German) course.
This is a classic example of how difficult even the best informed contemporaries found it to
read the intentions of allies and enemies.
The key point here is that the alliances meant entirely different things to different parties,
and that different factions within different foreign offices were engaged in significant amounts
of cross-talk in a manner which undermined any specifically unified method of setting policy.
Here again the contingent facts of the particular individuals playing particular roles carries
much more explanatory power than simple declarations of "German aggression."
Britain had guaranteed Belgian independence and the brutal German invasion (some of the
atrocity stories were false, many were not) convinced Lloyd George that war was a moral imperative,
while the attack on France was insufficient. He and his immediate supporters gave the Cabinet
a pro-war majority. So it really was about Belgium.
This is yet another drastic oversimplification. The decision in favor of intervention actually
preceded the German invasion and any atrocities that occurred; that decision came by the end of
August 2, two days before German forces crossed the Belgian border, and it was the result of particularly
skillful political maneuvering on the part of the pro-war liberals and the conservative opposition.
Prior to that meeting, the position in the cabinet had been slanted against intervention, but
the anti-interventionists were outmaneuvered by Grey, who afterwards took his case to the House
of Commons and secured British commitment to the war. But while Belgium provided one of the pretexts,
there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the British leadership held any particular brief for
Belgium as such; Grey's speech was primarily pitched in terms of a moral commitment to France
and the possibility that British naval resources would be required to defend Mediterranean trade
routes if Italy withdrew from its own commitment to neutrality. The relevant cites are on pages
544-546 in Clark's book.
This was on top of a German naval programme obviously aimed at Britain.
German naval expansion needs to be seen in the larger context of Britain's own aggressive naval
posture. In 1897, the aforementioned Francis Bertie, in conversation with the German ambassador
von Eckardstein, literally threatened war and naval blockade against Germany if any German intervention
in the Transavaal were detected. Naturally, German naval expansion was undertaken with some eye
towards counteracting British supremacy, but this was par for the course at the time. As per Clark
(p. 149), "Until the signing of the Entente Cordiale in 1904, the programmatic documents of the
French naval strategists of the jeune ecole had envisioned systematic use in the event of war
of fast, well-armed cruisers to attack commercial shipping and force the British Isles into
starvation and submission. As late as 1898, this prospect seemed real enough in British naval
circles to generate panic over the need for extra cruisers and the consolidation of domestic food
supplies." Clark goes on:
In any case, it was not the building of German ships after 1898 that propelled Britain into
closer relations with France and Russia. The decision to enter into an Entente with France
and to seek an arrangement with Russia came about primarily as a consequence of pressures on
the imperial periphery. British policy-makers were less obsessed with, and less alarmed by,
German naval building than is often supposed. British naval strategy was never focused solely
on Germany but on the need to remain dominant in a world of great naval powers including
France, Russia, and the United States. Nor did German naval construction have the mesmerizing
effect on British strategists that has sometimes been claimed for it. In 1905, the director
of British naval intelligence could confidently describe Britain's naval preponderance over
Germany as 'overwhelming.' In October 1906, Charles Hardinge, permanent under-secretary at
the foreign office, acknowledged that Germany posed no immediate naval threat to Britain .[other
expressions of same follow] There was good reason for such confidence, because the Germans
lost the naval race hands down: whereas the number of German battleships rose from thirteen
to sixteen in the years 1898-1905, the British battle fleet rose from twenty-nine to forty-four
ships. Tirpitz had aimed at achieving a ratio of one German battleship to every 1.5 British
but he never got close. In 1913, the German naval command formally and unilaterally renounced
the Anglo-German arms races, Tirpitz declaring that he was satisfied with the ratios demanded
by Britain. By 1914, Britain's lead was once again increasing. The naval scares that periodically
swept through the British press and political circles were real enough but they were driven
in large part by campaigns launched by navalists to fend off demands for funding from the cash-starved
British army.
If German aggression were not stopped now then they would be harder to stop next time if
France and Russia were German clients.
Why and how would France or Russian become German clients? From pages 159-167, which conclude
his chapter titled "The Polarization of Europe," Clark demonstrates that much of the invention
of Germany as the implacable foe of Britain was due to the machinations and memoranda written
by Bertie, Nicolson, and Eyre Crowe. This was paralleled several years later by Sazonov's aggressive
formulation of Russo-German relations, partly in reaction to the Liman von Sanders mission to
Constantinople. None of this of course means that there was literally no German aggression or
that Germany was somehow an innocent wronged party; it just means that within the contours of
European international politics circa the beginning of the 20th century, Germany did not stand
out in any particular way from any of its contemporaries.
Russia faced the destruction of its ally Serbia even after Serbia had agreed nearly all
of Austria-Hungary's demands.
As I have argued via Clark above, this is not correct; there was no such concession at all.
I apologize for the length of this response, the multiple blockquotes, and the excruciating
level of detail, but I'm trying to summarize major points from a 600-page book and this is not
easy to do in an internet comment thread. Nevertheless, I think it's really important that the
discussion around causes of WWI does not devolve into a simple morality tale of "Germany bad,
Entente good." The real picture is infinitely more complex and that complexity deserves to be
taken seriously. I don't mean to imply by any means that Clark is the last true word on this subject,
but he makes a compelling case, backed by documentary evidence, that the "canonical" (at least,
I suppose, in the popular imagination) interpretation of the July Crisis is deeply misleading.
Moreover, he places the diplomatic machinations of the various foreign offices in the broader
context of international European competition, and underlines the ways in which the offices themselves
were not unitary actors but rather home to multiple factions which operated at cross-purposes
and often made promises that stood in contrast to the official pronouncements of their own heads
of state. I can't possibly do justice to the book here, so I would encourage everyone to read
it for themselves.
1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some
voices in favour of negotiations, but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By
the time the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost. Fear of socialism was
again a major factor in the post-war settlements.
"too early . . . to settle" - I have no idea what that means.
After nearly 100 years of European wars and crises that had been small, short and decisive,
the leadership in each of the Great Powers found themselves mired in something new and horrifying
and they seemed completely unprepared to take responsibility for its conduct, its course or its
termination.
It is quite remarkable the extent to which the Great Powers heaved themselves into total war,
entailing national and imperial effort on a scale unknown since Napoleon and having done so, appear
to have had little notion of what their goals were, beyond grasping at a forlorn hope of "winning"
on the battlefield, or just staying in long enough to win a contest of attrition, without any
realistic notion of what overarching purpose was being served or appreciation of the horrific
costs being borne by human beings in the decimation of the polity and its society.
This was in contrast with the long series of crises and short wars that preceded WWI, contests
which were short and decisive, precisely because there seems to have been a coordinating consensus
on goals and means - almost as if they were playing a game with written rules and scorekeeping.
That it was played as a game is not a moral justification, of course. The human costs of such
means of rivalry and dispute resolution - not to mention the arrogance of the routine abuse of
colonial or just peripheral states and populations - doesn't present a morally admirable picture,
but it does suggest statecraft as a purposeful, managed activity.
In retrospect, one can see early signs that the rules and assumptions of "gentlemanly" imperial
rivalry were being undermined and transformed by changes in military technology and the rise of
nation-states and a more popular sort of politics, but the total breakdown seems to have been
a surprise reward for a particular sort of accumulating moral and practical incompetence. In the
Agadir Crisis, with its Panther's Spring, or the Zabern incident or l'affaire Dreyfus or the Curragh
mutiny, I see more than hints of a moral and/or practical imbecility in the old order as well
as a stubborn resistance to liberal reform.
In the event, Wilson and his Fourteen Points (January 1918) was a galvanizing intervention.
On a more subterranean level, the almost bizarre musings of the German leadership on war aims,
would have serious consequences in the inter-war period. And, of course, we are still living with
the consequences of ill-conceived efforts by the British and French and Italians to "manage" formerly
Ottoman Arabia.
bruce wilder 10.23.16 at 7:17 pm
Peter T @ 40:
Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal
order. In the same way, the generation post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars
as the great disaster that shattered the happy old order.
There's a certain sort of conservative or reactionary who is inclined to tell liberals that
World War I was a disaster that shattered a pre-war liberal order. Somebody like John Keegan will
write this way with no consciousness of controversy at all. But, it wasn't actually the liberal
order that was shattered; what was shattered was an order of hereditary aristocracy and imperialism.
Liberalism failed conspicuously in the inter-war period, but that's a different narrative if
you recognize that pre-war liberalism had come up short in its attempts to reform a non-liberal
order which collapsed in senseless violence of its own febrile making.
The trouble with saying that a generation after 1815 looked back and saw the French Revolution
and Napoleon as a disaster is that it was only a narrow, reactionary slice at the top of the steep
pyramid of political power that held this view without significant qualification and they tended
to make themselves look ridiculous when they acted as if the world had been restored to their
liking, as when Charles X tried to cure scrofula with the King's touch at his coronation in 1824.
For most people, even or especially the upper reaches of the professional classes and the bourgeoisie,
the liberal reforms of Napoleon were as inviolable as a return to general war was unthinkable.
It took half a generation to fashion that into the liberalism of compromising on incremental reform
in the context of a presumed course of inevitable progress, but that formula worked in the constitutional
reforms of the early 1830s, in at least some of the many revolutions of 1848 and became the doctrine
of a new conservatism circa 1866-71.
It was the perception of liberalism triumphant that gives a sense of a liberal order emerging
in the course of the long 19th century after 1815, but at every step the old order of hereditary
aristocracy was preserving itself and its privileges. In the consensus of elite opinion, monarchy
(somewhat qualified as constitutional monarchy to mollify liberal sensibility), not republican
democracy, is awarded pride of place as the ideal of natural political order.
Even without instruction from the likes of Keegan, I think many small-l liberals and social
democrats look back at the period before the First World War with amnesia for the reality of a
degenerate political order of hereditary aristocracy and imperialism and project some kind of
normal politics, so that WWI shatters normal civilization with the terrible consequences that
followed. Many reactionaries have roughly commensurable views that sum up as "Kaiser Wilhelm was
OK, what was the big deal?" Niall Ferguson, for example, has offered the view that Britain's entry
into war was a huge strategic error; on cost-benefit grounds, he argues that Imperial Britain
should have bided its time and conserved its resources, dealing later from relative strength with
the German Empire.
In some ways, I suppose, the erasure of historical detail is the flipside of Lind's alleged
uniformitarian science fiction narrative that Henry is writing about. Of course, Lind is almost
nostalgic for a nationalism that may be only a reactionary vestige in our time. I don't know that
qualifies as "presentism" or just a failure of imagination.
I haven't read The Sleepwalkers nor even all of your long comment above summarizing
it. But from the sentences at the end of your post you presumably realize that Clark is only one
of a number of historians who published books about WW1 and its origins around the time of the
hundredth anniversary in 2014. (Btw there have been very long threads on CT on this subject with
lots of people commenting, some with reading recommendations: e.g. J.C.G. Rohl's essays on the
origins were mentioned back then by someone who seemed to know what s/he was talking about; also
I. Hull, Absolute Destruction which is not about the origins primarily but more about German
'military culture' and the conduct of the war.) I've no reason to doubt Clark's an excellent historian,
but like every historian he has a point of view, and given the enormous extant historiography
I don't think there can be such a thing as a definitive account of the origins of WW1, and there
also can't be a purely 'objective' one.
You write:
I think it's really important that the discussion around causes of WWI does not devolve
into a simple morality tale of "Germany bad, Entente good." The real picture is infinitely
more complex and that complexity deserves to be taken seriously. I don't mean to imply by any
means that Clark is the last true word on this subject, but he makes a compelling case, backed
by documentary evidence, that the "canonical" (at least, I suppose, in the popular imagination)
interpretation of the July Crisis is deeply misleading.
I think most here would probably agree that the origins of WW1 can't be fit into "a simple
morality tale," and if that's the view of "the popular imagination," it's not right.
bruce wilder@49'"too early . . . to settle" - I have no idea what that means.'
And earlier@25: 'Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully
evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915)".
Yes, if you look only at the Western front. In the East, 1915 was objectively the year of the
fall of Serbia, and far more spectacularly the year of Gorlice-Tarnow: the enormously successful
German/Austro-Hungarian breakthrough at the western end of the Russian Carpathian front, followed
by rolling up the enemy positions in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, for 200 miles or more, in what
even the Russians called the Great Retreat: capture of Warsaw, Lvov, Brest-Litovsk, Vilna, ending
with a front line stretching from Riga to the Romanian border.
If the German command did not think that was futile, who can blame them? Do you? If peace had
been made in 1915 (and I entirely agree that might in the long run have been preferable) would
that not have meant the Central Powers keeping their conquests in Belgium, northern France, western
Russia, and Serbia?
Would that have been an acceptable ending for the Entente who could reasonably hope that
the British armies (left untrained and unequipped in 1915 by reason of the British government's
not wanting, and not preparing for, an European land war) might in 1916 achieve something? Would
it have been an acceptable ending even for the Central Powers, who after such victories in 1914-15
might reasonably hope for an even more favorable settlement after more victories in the East?
If not the latter, remember it takes two to make peace.
Gareth Wilson@20: "I haven't seen any alternate history stories where the British Empire decides
not to fight the Boer War and leaves Orange Free State and the Republic of Transvaal independent."
Given that the Boer War began with the armed forces of the Orange Free State and the Republic
of Transvaal invading British territories hence the sieges of Ladysmith, Kimberly and Mafeking
I find it hard to imagine an alternate history in which the British Empire shrugs its collective
shoulders and says, oh all right then, invade us as you please, we won't fight.
Brett Dunbar 10.23.16 at 9:11 pm
Relating to the British declaration of war the Cabinet was split. One faction already supported
intervention. Churchill was the most enthusiastic while Grey was somewhat more reluctantly in
favour. A second faction were firmly opposed, two resigned in protest. In the middle was Lloyd
George and his friends, until the invasion of Belgium he was ambivalent but on balance opposed
to a direct involvement. Grey couldn't make a commitment as the Cabinet wasn't willing to commit
to defend France.
Serbia's position was analogous with the current position of North Korea, an odious regime
which happens to be the client of a great power. Austria-Hungary backed by Germany called Russia's
bluff on Serbia, it turned out that Russia wasn't bluffing. Germany then launched an entirely
unprovoked invasion of Belgium.
53: That's true, which makes the idea of the Boer War as unnecessary even flimsier.
John Quiggin 10.23.16 at 9:54 pm
I'd be interested to read the views of the pro-war commenters above on more recent wars, particularly
those in which the US has been engaged. I can't see any difference between the pro-war cases made
above and those for Vietnam, the Iraq wars and others.
I haven't read The Sleepwalkers nor even all of your long comment above summarizing it.
But from the sentences at the end of your post you presumably realize that Clark is only one
of a number of historians who published books about WW1 and its origins around the time of
the hundredth anniversary in 2014.
Indeed, and if you read, or even skim my post, you will see that I explicitly acknowledge this
very fact.
I've no reason to doubt Clark's an excellent historian, but like every historian he has
a point of view, and given the enormous extant historiography I don't think there can be such
a thing as a definitive account of the origins of WW1, and there also can't be a purely 'objective'
one.
I don't believe I have ever claimed this, nor have I ever used the word "objective" in either
of my posts in this thread. That said, there do exist documentary records of what various actors
were doing and saying at the time; any serious historical exegesis has to take those things into
account (and of course the records themselves can often be falsified, as the Russians and French
foreign offices both did after the fact). It is my understanding from reading about Clark's work
that his greatest contribution has been precisely the depth of his excavation of this documentary
record. I brought the book into this discussion because it has been widely acknowledged as a very
valuable addition to the scholarship precisely on the strength of this work.
I think most here would probably agree that the origins of WW1 can't be fit into "a simple
morality tale," and if that's the view of "the popular imagination," it's not right.
Well, my long post was in response to several points made by Brett Dunbar, which reiterated
the idea that the war was simply a result of unchecked and unjustified German aggression. My goal
was to show, citing relevant research, that this view is mistaken. I think it is also the view
that is most often incorrectly taught at the high school and college level, but if that's not
the case then I'm perfectly willing to take back that statement.
Brett,
Relating to the British declaration of war the Cabinet was split. One faction already supported
intervention. Churchill was the most enthusiastic while Grey was somewhat more reluctantly
in favour. A second faction were firmly opposed, two resigned in protest. In the middle was
Lloyd George and his friends, until the invasion of Belgium he was ambivalent but on balance
opposed to a direct involvement. Grey couldn't make a commitment as the Cabinet wasn't willing
to commit to defend France.
The cabinet had already decided before the invasion had actually commenced that it would intervene
if it occurred. If Lloyd George was indeed ambivalent about it, he couldn't have been that
ambivalent, since he certainly allowed intervention to be put forth as the official position
of the government, which Grey did on August 3, one day before the invasion had actually commenced.
Here's some additional background that Clark gives as regards Belgian neutrality (p. 494):
Even the question of Belgium seemed unlikely to trigger an intervention. It was widely assumed,
on the basis of both military intelligence secured by the French General Staff and of military
inference, that the Germans would approach France through Belgium, breaching the 1839 international
treaty guaranteeing its neutrality. But the cabinet took the view that, while Britain was indeed
a signatory to the treaty, the obligation to uphold it fell on all the signatories collectively,
not on any one of them individually. Should the matter actually arise, they concluded, the
British response would be 'one of policy rather than obligation.' Indeed, it is striking with
what sang-froid senior British military and political leaders contemplated a German breach
of Belgian neutrality. On the basis of Anglo-French staff conversations in 1911, Henry Wilson
had come to the conclusion that the Germans would choose to cross the Ardennes through southern
Belgium, confining their troops to the area south of the rivers Sambre and Meuse; these findings
were presented to the 114th meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The same scenario
was discussed by the cabinet on 29 July, when Lloyd George showed, using a map, why it was
likely that the Germans would cross 'only the furthest southern corner' of Belgium. Far from
greeting this prospect with outrage, the minsters accepted it as strategically necessary (from
Germany's standpoint) and thus virtually inevitable. British strategic concerns were focused
primarily on Antwerp and the mouth of the river Schelde, which had always been regarded as
one of the keys to British security. 'I don't see,' Churchill commented, 'why we should come
in if they o only a little way into Belgium.' Lloyd George later claimed that he would have
refused to go to war if the German invasion of Belgium had been confined to the route through
the Ardennes. British policy-makers assumed in any case that the Belgians themselves would
not make their last stand in the south, but would, after offering token resistance to demonstrate
that they had not permitted the violation, fall back on their lines of fortification further
to the north. There would thus be nothing automatic between a German invasion of Belgium and
British intervention in the conflict.
Assuming this chronology is correct, it appears that even at a very late stage in the crisis,
the question of Belgian neutrality was not necessarily the deciding factor in the decision to
intervene. There's definitely a possible timeline in which Britain does not declare war almost
immediately following the German incursion into Belgium.
Serbia's position was analogous with the current position of North Korea, an odious regime
which happens to be the client of a great power. Austria-Hungary backed by Germany called Russia's
bluff on Serbia, it turned out that Russia wasn't bluffing. Germany then launched an entirely
unprovoked invasion of Belgium.
It's not clear that Austria-Hungary could have been said to even understand that they were
calling a bluff. Clark's argument on this point is spread out across many pages, but generally
amounts to the contention that Austria viewed the ultimatum as an affair strictly between it and
Serbia. One can (and Clark does) fault the Austrians for their short-sightedness and their failure
to properly assess the international situation, but they were certainly not alone in this.
JQ: I can't see any difference between the pro-war cases made above and those for Vietnam,
the Iraq wars and others.
Really? I don't know that I made a "pro-war case", per se, but I think I understood the cases
made. As far as I know, neither Vietnam nor Iraq (2003) attacked the United States or any formal
allies of the U.S.
"As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just
like any other attack," the Democratic presidential nominee said. "We will be ready with serious
political, economic and military responses. "
We need to tell everyone that for the sake of the word. do not vote for this
dangerous woman!
"... I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. ..."
"... But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid. ..."
"... In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook. ..."
The key problems with Democratic Party and Hillary is that they lost working class and middle
class voters, becoming another party of highly paid professionals and Wall Street speculators
(let's say top 10%, not just 1%), the party of neoliberal elite.
It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and
lower middle class works this time. I think it will not. Even upper middle class is very resentful
of Democrats and Hillary. So many votes will be not "for" but "against". This is the scenario
Democratic strategists fear the most, but they can do nothing about it.
She overplayed "identity politics" card. Her "identity politics" and her fake feminism are
completely insincere. She is completely numb to human suffering and interests of females and minorities.
Looks like she has a total lack of empathy for other people.
"What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the
generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not
hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times (
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html ) revealed
that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces
whenever her opinion is solicited. "
Usually people are resentful about Party which betrayed them so many times. It would be interesting
to see how this will play this time.
Beverly Mann October 23, 2016 12:00 pm
It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and
lower middle class works this time?
Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class
at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the
estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation
of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department
and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over
to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC,
the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust
Division)-to name only some.
And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that
they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed
proxies of big business.
And then there's the incessant push to privatize Social Security and Medicare. It ain't the
Dems that are pushing that.
You're drinking wayyy too much Kool Aid, likbez. Or maybe just reading too much Ayn Rand, at
Paul Ryan's recommendation.
beene October 23, 2016 10:31 am
I would suggest despite most of the elite in both parties supporting Hillary, and saying
she has the election in the bag is premature. In my opinion the fact that Trump rallies still
has large attendance; where Hillary's rallies would have trouble filling up a large room is a
better indication that Trump will win.
Even democrats are not voting democratic this time to be ignored till election again.
likbez October 23, 2016 12:56 pm
Beverly,
=== quote ===
Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class
at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the
estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation
of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department
and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand
over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC,
the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including
the Antitrust Division) -- to name only some.
And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that
they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed
proxies of big business.
=== end of quote ===
This is all true. But Trump essentially running not as a Republican but as an independent on
(mostly) populist platform (with elements of nativism). That's why a large part of Republican
brass explicitly abandoned him. That does not exclude that he easily will be co-opted after the
election, if he wins.
And I would not be surprised one bit if Dick Cheney, Victoria Nuland, Paul Wolfowitz and Perle
vote for Hillary. Robert Kagan and papa Bush already declared such an intention. She is a neocon.
A wolf in sheep clothing, if we are talking about real anti-war democrats, not the USA brand of
DemoRats. She is crazy warmonger, no question about it, trying to compensate a complete lack of
diplomatic skills with jingoism and saber rattling.
The problem here might be that you implicitly idealize Hillary and demonize Trump.
I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests
complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite.
But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in
addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John
McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon
all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and
a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid.
That's what classic neoliberal DemoRats "bait and switch" maneuver (previously executed
by Obama two times) means. And that's why working class now abandoned Democratic Party. Even unions
members of unions which endorses Clinton are expected to vote 3:1 against her. Serial betrayal
of interests of working class (and lower middle class) after 25 years gets on nerve. Not that
their choice is wise, but they made a choice. This is "What's the matter with Kansas" all over
again.
It reminds me the situation when Stalin was asked whether right revisionism of Marxism (social
democrats) or left (Trotskyites with their dream of World revolution) is better. He answered "both
are worse" :-).
In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that
in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely
dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to
governance of such a huge country crook.
Of course, we need also remember about existence of "deep state" which make each of
them mostly a figurehead, but still the power of "deep state" is not absolute and this is a very
sad situation.
Beverly Mann, October 23, 2016 1:57 pm
Good grace.
Two points: First, you apparently are unaware of Trump's proposed tax plan, written by Heritage
Foundation economists and political-think-tank types. It's literally more regressively extreme
evn than Paul Ryan's. It gives tax cuts to the wealthy that are exponentially more generous percentage-wise
than G.W. Bush's two tax cuts together were, it eliminates the estate tax, and it gives massive
tax cuts to corporations, including yuge ones.
Two billionaire Hamptons-based hedge funders, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, have
been funding a super PAC for Trump and since late spring have met with Trump and handed him policy
proposals and suggestions for administrative agency heads and judicial appointments. Other yuge
funders are members of the Ricketts family, including Thomas Ricketts, CEO of TD Ameritrade and
a son of its founder.
Two other billionaires funding Trump: Forrest Lucas, founder of Lucas Oil and reportedly Trump's
choice for Interior Secretary if you and the working class and lower middle class folks whose
interests Trump has at heart get their way.
And then there's Texas oil billionaire Harold Hamm, Trump's very first billionaire mega-donor.
One of my recurring pet peeves about Clinton and her campaign is her failure to tell the public
that these billionaires are contributing mega-bucks to help fund Trump's campaign, and to tell
the public who exactly they are. As well as her failure to make a concerted effort to educate
the public about the the specifics of Trump's fiscal and deregulatory agenda as he has published
it.
As for your belief that I idealize Clinton, you obviously are very new to Angry Bear. I was
a virulent Sanders supporter throughout the primaries, to the very end. In 2008 I originally supported
John Edwards during the primaries and then, when it became clear that it was a two-candidate race,
supported Obama. My reason? I really, really, REALLY did not want to see another triangulation
Democratic administration. That's largely what we got during Obama's first term, though, and I
was not happy about it.
Bottom line: I'm not the gullible one here. You are.
likbez, October 23, 2016 2:37 pm
You demonstrate complete inability to weight the gravity of two dismal, but unequal in their
gravity options.
All your arguments about Supreme Court justices, taxes, inheritance and other similar things
make sense if and only if the country continues to exist.
Which is not given due to the craziness and the level of degeneration of neoliberal elite and
specifically Hillary ("no fly zone in Syria" is one example of her craziness). Playing chickens
with a nuclear power for the sake of proving imperial dominance in Middle East is a crazy policy.
Neocons rule the roost in both parties, which essentially became a single War Party with two
wings. Trump looks like the only chance somewhat to limit their influence and reach some dιtente
with Russia.
Looks like you organically unable to understand that your choice in this particular case is
between the decimation of the last remnants of the New Deal and a real chance of WWIII.
This is not "pick your poison" situation. Those are two events of completely difference magnitude:
one is reversible (and please note that Trump is bound by very controversial obligations to his
electorate and faces hostile Congress), the other is not.
We all should do our best to prevent the unleashing WWIII even if that means temporary decimation
of the remnants of New Deal.
Neoliberalism after 2008 entered zombie state, so while it is still strong, aggressive and
bloodthirsty it might not last for long. And in such case the defeat of democratic forces on domestic
front is temporary.
"As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just
like any other attack," the Democratic presidential nominee said. "We will be ready with serious
political, economic and military responses. "
We need to tell everyone that for the sake of the word. do not vote for this
dangerous woman!
"... Now the system faces exhaustion, discreditation, crisis and when the masses turn to radical demands on their wealth and power the elite turns to the popular prejudice it holds in the palm of its hand: the lust for war. ..."
"... in a system where state power engineers a national market in a competitive world wide economic system, said state powers will pursue the competition by multifarious means, including state violence, a competition leading to negative outcomes. That, in other words, the breakdown of the general peace between the great empires was an inevitability, even if the date was an accident found by sleepwalkers. No doubt the notion seems outre for those who believe at heart in the magic of the market. ..."
"... I confess it's hard for me to grasp why the experience of the Great War would be internalized as a lesson by today's leaders by what mechanism? They have no direct experience of it at all. The horror of the war is so remote as to reside in the realm of fantasy or fiction. ..."
"... As to the consequences, today's leaders and war advocates of whom you speak reside in countries that are by and large the beneficiaries of past wars. ..."
"... Since you seem to be interested in the causes of wars, wonder if you are familiar with John Swomley's work. ..."
"... All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit from Iraqi oil and whatever was expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that could have been more efficiently handled, but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war. The real profit was the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights of the American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there, and why, if our elites persist, we might go to war with Russia or China. ..."
"... The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards doubling down. This operates on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication of those involved in the decision to start the conflict. There is also the horror that if you end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the families of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very bad for your political future). ..."
"... Japan currently has a constitution that makes war illegal. ..."
"... John Quiggin- The problem I was trying to suggest was that of presentism. ..."
I've written a lot here about the disaster of the Great War, and the moral culpability of all those
who brought it about and continued it. It's fair to say, I think, that the majority of commenters
have disagreed with me and that many of those commenters have invoked some form of historical relativism,
based on the idea that we shouldn't judge the rulers (or for that matter the public) of 1914 on the
same criteria we would apply to Bush, Blair and their supporters.
It's fascinating therefore to read Henry Reynolds' latest book, Unnecessary Wars
about Australia's participation in the Boer War, and realise that the arguments for and against
going to war then were virtually the same as they are now. The same point is made by Douglas Newton
in Hell-Bent:
Australia's leap into the Great War . He shows how, far from loyally following Britain into a
regrettably necessary war, leading members of the Australian political and military class pushed
hard for war. In Newtown's telling, the eagerness of pro-war Dominion governments helped to tip the
scales in the British public debate and in the divided Liberal candidate. I don't have the expertise
to assess this, but there's no escaping the echoes of the push towards the Iraq war in 2002 and early
2003, when this blog was just starting out.
The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914, just as
the case against slavery was developed and argued in the US before 1861. Those who were on the wrong
side can't be excused on the grounds that they were people of their time.
The only defence that can be made is that those who were eager for war in 1914 had not experienced
the disaster of the Great War and its consequences. The failure of today's war advocates to learn
from this disaster makes their position that much worse. But the same is true of anyone defending
the warmakers of 1914 on any grounds other than that of their ignorance.
The Napoleonic Wars were no more remote from 1914 than the First World War is from today. If it's
reasonable to expect modern leaders to remember the Somme, you can damned well blame Kaiser Wilhelm
for not remembering Austerlitz. (Not really meaning to single him out there; I'm pretty sure that
everybody had at least one "whoopsie, got a few tens of thousands of our boys killed there" moment
between 1799-1815.)
Jerry Vinokurov 10.22.16 at 7:26 am
I forget, did CT ever have a symposium on Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers ?
I'm surprised I haven't run into some godawful right-revisionist arguing the allies were on the
side of the angels in the great war. No doubt one will present themselves in the comments.
According to wiki, the Boer War cost £200 million (£22 billion @ 2015). Annual SA gold exports
were $3.8 billion USD in 2005. Platinum is similar, diamonds, uranium and chromium significant
too. So at the basic level of imperial arithmetic, the claim it was unprofitable would seem to
be wrong.
In contrast, the same claim about the Iraq war would be clearly right. Even if you teleported
the entire Iraqi oil reserves into a big tank in the midwest, you could barely sell them at a
price that would break even on the war.
Which argument is right, and which is wrong, would seem to be at the heart of the issue. In
contrast, whether or not you can find someone who made a particular argument doesn't seem that
significant. People in the past didn't know the future; some of them will have been wrong about
it.
Placeholder 10.22.16 at 11:16 am
Timothy@3
You haven't run into David Cameron; "We should be clear that world war one was fought in a just
cause and that our ancestors thought it would be bad to have a Prussian-dominated Europe."
John@0
This blog was created in the Iraq War period when the venture was mounted as the height of ideological
preciousness and in the luxurious excess of Aussenpolitik . As before the belle epoque
of decades of peace, progress and the liberal way is perished, rather, swallowed up and lost
in the infernal device they set running for their ends.
The scene has changed fundamentally. The six weeks' march to Paris has grown into a world
drama. Mass slaughter has become the tiresome and monotonous business of the day and the end
is no closer. Bourgeois statecraft is held fast in its own vise. The spirits summoned up can
no longer be exorcised. Gone is the euphoria.
Gone the patriotic noise in the streets, the chase after the gold-colored automobile, one
false telegram after another, the wells poisoned by cholera, the Russian students heaving bombs
over every railway bridge in Berlin, the French airplanes over Nuremberg, the spy hunting public
running amok in the streets, the swaying crowds in the coffee shops with ear-deafening patriotic
songs surging ever higher, whole city neighborhoods transformed into mobs ready to denounce,
to mistreat women, to shout hurrah and to induce delirium in themselves by means of wild rumors.
Gone, too, is the atmosphere of ritual murder, the Kishinev air where the crossing guard
is the only remaining representative of human dignity.
-"Junius"
Now the system faces exhaustion, discreditation, crisis and when the masses turn to radical
demands on their wealth and power the elite turns to the popular prejudice it holds in the palm
of its hand: the lust for war.Innenpolitik has returned.
The Second International, which had bravely fought and won for the International Worker's Day
on May 1st and International Women's Day on March 8th was swallowed and consumed by the hunger
for patriotism and war. The whole conference voting for international peace and solidarity and
every constituent party captured by its own 'social patriotism.' Lenin falling of his chair at
the news the whole German SDPer to vote for war credits (save Karl Liebknecht). Keir Hardie died
a broken man.
And many of us still say the universal conflagration the lights that went and the world-fire
that was set on August 1, 1914 did not burn out until August 15, 1945. That Hiroshima air.
Working men and working women! Mothers and fathers! Widows and orphans! Wounded and crippled!
We call to all of you who are suffering from the war and because of the war: Beyond all borders,
beyond the reeking battlefields, beyond the devastated cities and villages Proletarians of
all countries, unite!
Lenin et al., Zimmerwald, 1915.
ZM 10.22.16 at 11:49 am
John Quiggin,
"He shows how, far from loyally following Britain into a regrettably necessary war, leading
members of the Australian political and military class pushed hard for war. "
But Australia didn't have conscription for the First World War, and also there was a national
vote allowed on the matter of conscription. So even if some people did push hard for war, there
were a lot of Australians who pushed back against the war drive.
In the town I grew up in one of the big hills overlooking the main street was turned into a
white quartz rock billboard with VOTE NO for conscription, although this same hill had a quartz
rock V on it at the end of WWII.
I think its difficult sometimes judging if wars are necessary. It can be difficult to decide
about a war at the start, and easier to decide about it afterwards unfortunately.
I remember first really learning about the First World War in any detail from The Anne Of Green
Gables series when I was a kid. The final proper book in the series ends with the war, and it
starts with the young men all sort of thinking of the bravery and so on, and ends with them dying
or wounded mostly, although its set at home with the women and older people and children hearing
the news and waiting for the war to end. There is a later book in the series part based in the
early days of the Second World War, with a lot of bitterness about war in contrast to the WWI
book.
But I couldn't really say that WWII shouldn't have been fought by the Allies. But a lot of
the information I have to decide that WWII was a just war, if there can be just wars, is based
on information that came to light during the war or after the war.
I didn't agree with the war in Afghanistan and went on at least one march against it but I
had to think about it a lot and wasn't sure at first, since the Taliban were so terrible, and
I had no idea it would turn into this protracted extended group of wars in the Middle East.
But I read something by Kim Beazley saying he already committed Australia to following America
to war in the Middle East when he was Defence Minister in a conversation with someone from the
USA Government that he didn't realise the significance of at the time.
So it would seem that Australia was already committed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq before
they even started.
I would like to see a reappraisal of security policy generally really. The situation with China
and America has calmed down since a few years ago, but still has the prospects to be unsettling.
And I don't like what's happening with America and Russia at the moment, and Julie Bishop the
Australian Foreign Minister said she witnessed a discussion about Syria where trust had completely
broken down and she thought that all options need to be on the table to stop destruction now,
including no arms sales to Syrian groups. They might not have many munitions factories of their
own if other countries stopped supplying them with weapons and ammunition.
Looking at the Amazon page on The Sleepwalkers, they describe it as a study of how "well-intentioned"
people it is generally felt that national power and prestige and prosperity are good things to
intend. The British Empire in particular was deemed to be an amazingly good thing for humanity,
an idea revived for popular consumption in steampunk. And this is doubly true I think when somehow
one nation's place in the sun is a bad intention, yet an empire whose place is under the noonday
sun, everywhere in the world when it is local noon. Yet if you reversed the proposition, it would
be just as senseless. Moralizing about individual psychology, contra Corey Robin, just doesn't
seem to be all that enlightening.
I suppose it's possible Clark was misrepresented. But the commercial interest in bottom lining
the selling point makes it seem unlikely. Also, looking at the table of contents, the chapter
and section titles suggest the book neglects Anglo-French tensions (Fashoda seems to be missing,)
the whole Russian-Japanese war and subsequent revolution, the Austro-Hungarian seizures of the
Sanjak and Bosnia. The Venezuelan crisis of 1902? At least one of the Moroccan crises and one
of the Balkan wars gets into the table of contents.
Still, despite the obvious usefulness of examining the particular crisis that led to the general
catastrophe, it is not at all clear that Clark has any notion that any of these crises could have
led to war. Nor does Clark seem to have a notion that maybe, in a system where state power
engineers a national market in a competitive world wide economic system, said state powers will
pursue the competition by multifarious means, including state violence, a competition leading
to negative outcomes. That, in other words, the breakdown of the general peace between the great
empires was an inevitability, even if the date was an accident found by sleepwalkers. No doubt
the notion seems outre for those who believe at heart in the magic of the market.
The OP's concern with the moral responsibility for the war seems to focus solely on one train
of events that happened to result in a bad accident, rather than a bad system that would inevitably
break down. The comparison to American slavery is suggestive. To avoid the Civil War, the slavers
would have had to give up their property and power. To avoid the Great War, the rulers would have
had to give up their empires. States would have to forego the good intentions of defending their
national interests by all means necessary. Like the slave power in America, though we may wisely
declare after the fact their surrender will ultimately benefit even them, however shall we teach
them this wisdom in defiance of their daily experience? How shall it profit the rulers to retain
their souls if they lose the world?
chris y 10.22.16 at 12:21 pm
mjfgates @1
I was told that until the Great War, the Napoleonic Wars were colloquially referred to as "The
Great War". So, not forgotten.
"The only defence that can be made is that those who were eager for war in 1914 had not experienced
the disaster of the Great War and its consequences. The failure of today's war advocates to learn
from this disaster makes their position that much worse."
I confess it's hard for me to grasp why the experience of the Great War would be internalized
as a lesson by today's leaders by what mechanism? They have no direct experience of it at all.
The horror of the war is so remote as to reside in the realm of fantasy or fiction.
As to the
consequences, today's leaders and war advocates of whom you speak reside in countries that are
by and large the beneficiaries of past wars. The US, UK, Germany, France, Austria, Italy, Belgium,
The Netherlands these countries are the very definition of wealth and prosperity. Russia is
wealthy and prosperous compared to most other countries, as is Turkey.
Why should leaders of such
countries eschew war on the basis of experience? They have essentially no negative experience
of it at all, and other people's negative experience of it is hardly transferable over a gap of
100 years.
Placeholder 10.22.16 at 1:02 pm
"But Australia didn't have conscription for the First World War, and also there was a national
vote allowed on the matter of conscription. So even if some people did push hard for war, there
were a lot of Australians who pushed back against the war drive."
Isn't that the point? The 'british-to-their-bootstraps' establishment wanted to harvest the youth
for the most threatening war Europe had ever seen and the 'actually I'm Catholic and I'm here
cause you deported my dad' brigades forced and won a referendum against it in Australia.
And Quebec
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1917
And Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1918
The fact that they failed is not the point. The fact that Gough Whitlam, *cough*, Balibo Five
*cough cough* ahem that's the point.
"But I couldn't really say that WWII shouldn't have been fought by the Allies."
The 'agonizing quandary' of whether America should have gone to war is somewhat undermined by
Nazi Germany declaring war on them and the moral complusion 'we must do something' might perhaps
be undermined by France doing something and being utterly trounced. Finally the blinding raging
sanctimony of the warmongers 'but how can you be pacifist when Hitler is attacking you!!!?!' is
a little undermined by the fact that, yes, a global warmonger out to conquer everything in his
path will actually be attacking you and not by permanent metaphorical extension. "and Putin-Darmok
and Jalad at Tanagra, Appeasement Gerry Adams Munich".
Since you seem to be interested in the causes of wars, wonder if you are familiar with John Swomley's
work. Since I only became aware of him through a fluke (happened to be with someone getting an
email (believe it was from Elise Boulding) announcing John's death. He was surprised I wasn't
familiar with his work , and since he had worked with Elise and her husband Kenneth in Kansas
City at FOR Peace Center, I looked into it.
I was so impressed I have read most of John's work.
I highly recommend at least "American Empire-the Political Ethics of Twentieth Century Conquests"
[ http://bit.ly/2esBKnC ] . Along the lines
of AJ Taylor, it pretty much does away with the "devil theory of international relations" and
lies to rest MANY previous myths I was unaware I held.
The first eye opener was the attack on
Pearl Harbor, the US equivalent of the Reichtags fire. John made a passing reference that the
two leading newspapers in Honolulu, had in fact headlined "Kurusu Bluntly Warned Nation Ready
For Battle- Japanese May Strike Over The Weekend" on Sunday, November 31, 1941.
I was VERY skeptical,
but turns out, not only is this true, [ http://bit.ly/1zuS3nb
] but so were most of his other assertions on causes and events leading to war.
Placeholder 10.22.16 at 1:22 pm
Benk@7 "I'm just wondering why the 1861 sentence didn't read 'the push towards war' instead of
'the case against slavery.' After all, the theme of the whole post "
See that's what I'm talking about. The Confederacy attacked the vestiges of the Union. Like
with 'but WWII' this latest very serious and very necessary war of choice is excused by constant
metaphorical extension from an unimpeachable war of alien aggression. Anti-militarism and Anti-imperialism
is always obligated to the logic of pacifism.
The situation for the various participants varies.
Serbia, Belgium and France were directly attacked and had no choice other than fighting or
surrender. Serbia had agreed to seventeen of the twenty one demands in full, three with reservations
and rejected one. Germany and Austria-Hungary were the aggressors and actively sought war.
Italy and Japan were essentially opportunistic, both feeling that they could make gains at
a relatively low cost, Japan correctly, Italy incorrectly.
Britain, Russia and the USA were in a position of either fighting or suffering a major foreign
policy defeat.
Britain had guaranteed Belgian independence and the brutal German invasion (some of the atrocity
stories were false, many were not) convinced Lloyd George that war was a moral imperative, while
the attack on France was insufficient. He and his immediate supporters gave the Cabinet a pro-war
majority. So it really was about Belgium. This was on top of a German naval programme obviously
aimed at Britain. If German aggression were not stopped now then they would be harder to stop
next time if France and Russia were German clients.
Russia faced the destruction of its ally Serbia even after Serbia had agreed nearly all of
Austria-Hungary's demands.
The USA had got Germany to halt unrestricted submarine warfare after the Lusitania only by
threatening war. The resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare left them with a credibility
problem if no declaration was made.
I'm not very familiar with what happened with the Ottoman empire.
The view that the Entante were morally right is pretty much the consensus in military history.
The popular view is extremely dated and not well supported by evidence.
The desire to avoid another world war was one of the reasons that Britain and France were so
reluctant to oppose Germany during the 1930s. Faced by a relentless aggressor it is normally better
to fight now with as allies than later alone.
Kim Beazley was the Defence Minister in previous Labour governments, not in the Liberal Howard
Government that was in power during the starts of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. It was more a
strategic commitment rather than a declaration of war:
"The United States had regarded our contribution to the Tanker War [part of the Iran-Iraq war]
activity as an earnest of good faith that new Australian defence policies still contemplated an
ability to respond positively to allies.
I did then recollect a call from him sometime in October 1987 when he had opened:
"You remember that conversation we had last year when you said that even though your forces
were structured to defend Australia, you would still work elsewhere if your ally needed you?
Well, this is the call."
The conversation he was alluding to was a fierce argument before the White Paper was produced
but after the publication of Paul Dibb's Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities.
I had not understood at the time of his call how much of a test he considered it. In his mind
it was evidently a little more than normal banter."
The role of Commonwealth and Empire troops in Britain's wars is immense and complex. On simple
terms, elites in Commonwealth nations often shared values, politics, and economic interests with
the 'mother nation' and each other. We should not, therefore, be surprised to find elites in Australia
cheering for a war championed by elites in London. Those further down the pecking order were often
hostile to the idea of going to war. In India, a sizeable minority elected to fight alongside
the Japanese against Britain.
As for learning from mistakes, we clearly haven't. It's too easy to forget how Americans of
all political stripes cheered once the bombs started landing in Iraq in 2003. Ignored now by many
supporting the only candidate directly involved in America's 21st century wars of choice is the
fact that America under the Democrats is now fighting five wars, or the same war on five different
fronts. None of which is likely to end in time for the Peace Prize President to declare victory,
although the pliant media may oblige with a 'thank goodness we brought that part of Bush's mess
to an end.
The press seems much more interested in securing victory for the Democratic candidate before
the voters get their chance. A couple of days ago it was difficult to see any other outcome. That's
no longer the case. The race had tightened again.
Try as many might to forget the last 12 years of war under two two-term presidents from two
different parties with the prospect of at least another four from at least one of the two candidates,
ordinary Americans seem quite ready to take a break.
On a personal note. The one lesson learned from the Great Was in my own family was to avoid
war if at all possible. My grandfather wounded severely twice and sent back to the front in both
instances did all he could to ensure his own sons delayed enlisting as long as possible.
Jake Gibson 10.22.16 at 2:38 pm
World War 2 and possible the American Civil War are just about the only wars that I can think
of that might qualify as a "necessary war". I have long held that there are no "just wars", only
horrible wars and even worse wars.
you can damned well blame Kaiser Wilhelm for not remembering Austerlitz.
Or at least JenaFranz Joseph and Nicholas were the ones to remember Austerlitz
Gareth Wilson 10.22.16 at 6:36 pm
I haven't seen any alternate history stories where the British Empire decides not to fight the
Boer War and leaves Orange Free State and the Republic of Transvaal independent. Of course, there's
probably enough grim dystopias already. And maybe this covers it well enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hek-XimOhGA
"All history is contemporary history," the Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce wrote nearly a
hundred years ago. Modern historians' agree to some extent with this, aware that the writing of
history is an imperfect reconstruction of the past tainted with contemporary prejudices. Some
postmodern historians' go so far as to doubt whether anything approaching genuine knowledge of
the past is possible. But most people writing history today do engage to some degree in historical
relativism, aware that the past was to some extent unique. To start assigning moral responsibility
to past historical figures ignores what the study of history can truly offer. Looking at how historical
collective mentalities or institutions shaped individual actions doesn't just help us understand
past events, but also can make us more attuned to the existence of these complexities within society,
therefore helping us comprehend the present.
stevenjohnson 10.22.16 at 7:34 pm
Gareth Wilson @20 Well, there is the S.M. Stirling Draka series. From wikipedia, "The world of
the Domination diverges from our world at the time of the American Revolutionary War, when the
Netherlands declares war on Great Britain, resulting in the loss of its Cape Colony to the British.
After defeat in Revolutionary War, the Loyalists who historically went to Canada are instead resettled
in the new Crown Colony of Drakia (named after Sir Francis Drake) in South Africa, taking their
slaves with them. Thousands of Hessian German mercenaries who fought on the Loyalist side are
also paid off with land grants in the new colony. The Crown Colony of Drakia (later, the Dominion
of the Draka) is an aggressive militaristic slave-owning society, massively influenced by the
inherent racist attitudes of these American slave owner settlers that are allowed to run unchecked,
reinforced over the course of the late 18th and 19th century by 25,000 Icelanders fleeing their
island after the 1783-84 Volcanic devastation. French royalists, 150,000 defeated American Confederates
and other reactionary refugees also emigrate to the colony. The much earlier Dutch Boer settlers
are completely assimilated by these subsequent immigrants."
This doesn't sound like entertainment to me, so I haven't read a word.
All they had to do is remember the US Civil War. Horses charging into machine guns and repeating
rifles do not lead to longevity
Scott P. 10.22.16 at 8:44 pm
The difference with the Boer War is the Boers were not a threat to the peace and stability of
Europe, while the German military aristocracy certainly were.
The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914 . . .
Was it? I wonder about that.
Continuing the war , once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident
(which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral
culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. It is on this point that I think arguments from
before the war cannot have the weight the horror of experience must give them. Elite leadership
across Europe failed. It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power.
Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should
have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries
where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France. It is inexplicable,
really, unless you can see that the moral and practical case against war is not fully developed
between the wars; if there's a critique that made use of experience in its details in the 1920s
and 1930s and made itself heard, I missed it - it seems like opposites of such an appreciation
triumph.
And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? There's certainly a socialist
argument against war, based on the illegitimacy of war's class divisions, which were conveniently
exemplified in military rank and reactionary attitudes among the officer class. That internationalist
idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks. Universal conscription
in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the
horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived
conflicts with a decisive result.
bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:47 pm
Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements
that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged
they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their
ideas or arguments were.
Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics
of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore
Roosevelt - no little irony in either case. Without looking it up I recall Barbara Tuchman using
the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization,
as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war.
I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for
a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it
engaged by fully developed argument? When?
The long effort by reactionary forces to assemble a coalition capable of defeating Napoleon
had created in Europe what for a time was called the Concert of Europe. Austria, Prussia and Russia
initially cooperated in suppressing liberal and nationalist aspirations and that effort gradually
morphed into efforts to harness or channel rising liberalism and nationalism and industrial power.
It was the evolved apparatus descended from Metternich's Congress of Vienna thru Bismarck's Congress
of Berlin that made wars brief and generally decisive in regard to some policy end. The long list
of successive crises and brief wars that stevenjohnson references above - often cited as evidence
of the increasing fragility of the general peace - could just as well be cited as evidence for
the continued effectiveness of the antique Concert of Europe in containing and managing the risk
of general war. (Fashoda 1898, Venezuela 1902, Russo-Japanese War 1905, Agadir 1911, Balkan Wars
1911-1912 - it can be a very long list).
It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and
brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus
of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation
of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes. If this was the institutional program produced
by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed
or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences.
It was one of the mechanisms for peace by international law - the neutrality of Belgium mutually
guaranteed by Britain and Germany in the Treaty of London 1839 - that triggered Britain's entry
as an Allied Power and general war. There is, of course, no particular reason Australia should
have taken an interest in Belgium's neutrality, but it was that issue that seemed to compel the
consensus of opinion in favor of war in Britain's government.
The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with
primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create
a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.)
What I don't find is the alternative lever or mechanism at the ready, put in place by this
fully developed argument against war. The mechanism in place was the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed
by international law (arguably reinforced in the stipulations of the Hague Conference of 1907).
If Germany doesn't violate Belgian neutrality, the result in the West at least is stalemate as
France and Germany are evenly matched across their narrow and mostly impassable frontier; in the
East, Russia must concede to Germany even as Austria must concede to Russia; - instead of a general
conflagration, the result is another negotiated settlement of some sort, perhaps arbitrated by
Britain or the U.S.
The urgent questions of the day regarding the organization of modern liberal polities in the
territories of Ottoman Turkey, Hapsburg Austria and Czarist Russia - what is the strongly argued
and fully developed case there? How is the cause of Polish nationalism, or Finnish nationalism
or Yugoslav nationalism to be handled or managed without violence and war? The antique system
of a Concert of Europe had kinda sorta found a way by means of short and decisive engagements
followed by multi-power negotiation, a pattern that had continued with the gradual emergence of
Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania. But, where was the argument for managing irredentism and nationalist
aspiration peacefully?
I don't see how you can get an adequate account of Clark's book just by reading an Amazon blurb
and glancing at a table of contents. Your synopsis is totally mistaken (I also don't recall any
mention of "well-intentioned people" in the book).
What Clark has done was to write an extremely detailed diplomatic history of the July Crisis
and the events preceding it. He gets into some depth on questions like the conflicts over colonies
(Fashoda is discussed, starting on p. 132), but he also makes the strong case that this conflict
was only one of the contributing factors to the war. His major focus is on the structures of the
foreign policy apparatus within the government of each of the participants, and the interactions
between the various factions both within and across states. No one comes out looking particularly
good from this analysis, but it's not as simplistic as saying that the conflict was predetermined
by struggles over capital or whatever; in fact, there were many potential avenues that could have
avoided war, and it took the coincidence of some really terrible bluffs being made and called
by lots of different people in order for the war to actually happen. I'm happy to cite specific
examples if people are interested because I have the book handy.
The Sleepwalkers is really a valuable book; it taught me a great deal that I did not
know before (which, granted, may not mean much), but it also really changed the way that I think
about WWI. The standard explanation that is often given in college courses, and which pervades
the popular imagination, is that either the Germans were wicked mustache-twirling villains, or
that the conflict was structurally predetermined by the alliance system. Clark makes a very convincing
case that this is incorrect, that in addition to the alliance system which of course provided
the framework within which foreign policy decisions were being made, there was a great deal of
contingency in the decision to go to war, and that the key decision makers were acting under many
misapprehensions of both their own abilities and the abilities and information available to their
counterparts. It's really worth your while to read it if you're interested in the causes of the
war.
Brett Dunbar 10.22.16 at 9:43 pm
One reason for the high casualties in the American Civil War was that the armies had an unusual
habit of marching to fairly close range and then firing volley after volley from short range while
static. This surprised foreign military observers who were used to troops firing a volley then
charging into the enemy line.
The ACW had had an exceptionally high proportion of casualties
due to small arms at about 80%. It seems that having a bayonet helps even thought it was rarely
used directly as the soldiers rarely hung around to get stabbed. Charging directly into the enemy
formation while you would take heavy casualties if you got there you could scatter the enemy force
and win. This had been effective during the Russo-Japanese War, at the time the most recent great
power war.
All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit
from Iraqi oil and whatever was expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction,
the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that could have been more efficiently handled,
but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war. The real profit was
the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights
of the American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there,
and why, if our elites persist, we might go to war with Russia or China.
The good news is that, because of the unrelenting depredations by American elites on the treasure
and rights of the people, the United States is increasingly unable to wage war effectively. The
bad news is that our elites are too blind to see this.
America: Consuming your future today.
dpm 10.22.16 at 11:19 pm
The last big war in western europe prior to 1914 was the Franco-Prussian nonsense in 1870, and
that started in August and was over by Christmas, so maybe it wasn't crazy to expect a short war.
I can understand the argument that going to war was wrong in 1914, and certainly agree that
continuing it was morally bankrupt after the nature of the struggle became apparent. But I don't
understand the argument that the decision to fight was justified in 1939 if it was not justified
in 1914. In both cases, Australia followed the UK, and in both cases the UK fought to prevent
German domination of Europe, with the proximate cause being the invasion of a neutral country.
Of course, with hindsight Hitler looks much worse than the Kaiser, but its not clear that was
true from the standpoint of 1939. At that point, Hitler had never committed genocide, but the
Kaiser had (in Namibia).
John Quiggin 10.23.16 at 12:24 am
erichwwk @13 Thanks for the suggestion of Swomley.
George: This encapsulates the problems I have with historical relativism.
"To start assigning moral responsibility to past historical figures ignores what the study
of history can truly offer. "
But when does someone become a historical figure? Is GW Bush historical? Kissinger? Mao? Eisenhower?
And if we approach history with a strictly non-judgemental attitude to its actors, how does
this help us form judgements about what should be done in the present.
Mark Pontin 10.23.16 at 1:10 am
There's a book called THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE MACHINE GUN by John Ellis, that's very insightful
about how WWI turned out like it did.
Very likely some of you have read it. For those who haven't, I recommend it.
The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards
doubling down. This operates on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication
of those involved in the decision to start the conflict. There is also the horror that if you
end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the families
of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very
bad for your political future).
And of course if you quit, what is to stop the enemy from extracting reparations or worse from
you, because in his eyes, you are the criminal party. Much easier to try yet one more offensive,
or to lure a formerly neutral party into joining in and opening up another front, which you hope
will break the stalemate.
The thing that appalls me so much about the Great War, is how so many nations were dragged
in, by promises of booty. In many ways it resembles the Peloponnisian war, in its inability to
allow neutrals to be neutrals.
kidneystones 10.23.16 at 1:24 am
The title of the OP encapsulates the problem. I'd argue that all wars fit the bill.
The assumption that some wars are necessary and others are not is built into the discussion
and is, for me, the central problem with this and all other discussions on war.
It isn't at all clear to me that any wars are 'necessary.' That is not to say that coercive
violence is obsolete and that pacifism is the goal. That seems to me highly unrealistic.
Contra JQm we do not need to understand history to understand that all future wars are the
worst possible solution to any conflict. The problem is that when the powerful can impose their
will upon the weak they do, and will, unless the weak band together to reduce the power of the
strong.
Japan currently has a constitution that makes war illegal.
Surely this form of constraint on state violence should be the norm, not the exception. The
fact that so few nations are interested in making war illegal speaks volumes about our general
commitment to peaceful conflict resolution. States want a monopoly on violence within the state,
but in most 'civilized' societies a host of other institutions and statutes exist to constrain,
not eliminate, capricious and unjustified incidents of state violence. Yes, 'bad' actors exist
and have to be dealt with. Our current 'solution' to the bad actor problem within states is to
arm and fund them.
We invent fantasy patriots, rather than recognize that most/all of these individuals are self-interested
individuals seeking to profit from destroying/changing the status quo.
Ben Franklin was a British slave-owner and capitalist who spent his years in the mother nation
lobbying the British parliament on behalf of special interests and others seeking to enrich themselves.
When better opportunities arrived Franklin and other self-interested actors seized the moment
by force. One can make a persuasive case that Franklin and others were right to do so.
We are not, however, living in the latter stages of the 18th century. People do learn from
history, or can. We have numerous examples of how the state is not serving the interests of ordinary
citizens. In that sense little has changed since the time of Franklin. The US and Russia may be
the last nations to surrender the 'right' to attack and wage war on 'enemies.'
That does not mean the other nations should not renounce this 'right' to attack other nations
and wage war. There have some rare instances where international police actions/wars have curtailed
massacres. Interventions too often occur too late. A great many 'good' state actors such as Sweden
and Canada are deeply committed to the international sale of weapons, whilst making weepy noises
about the deplorable level of gun violence in the US, the free world's favorite whipping boy.
If any of the major powers in the war had quit in 1915, would the consequences at home have been
as limited as simply some leaders losing their positions? The spectre of revolution was haunting
the continent, and military failure is associated with that revolution happening in Germany and
the USSR. Perhaps the leaders of France and Germany decided not to back down in 1915 because they
thought that was a risk?
(I don't know how much the fear of revolution exercised the western leadership at that time,
so this is a genuine question).
LFC 10.23.16 at 1:47 am
There is not too much point in arguing about whether "the case against war was fully developed"
before 1914, because "fully developed" means different things to different people.
There were various sorts of arguments against war in reasonably wide circulation before 1914
- and this fact is important from a number of standpoints - but there was also a lot of war-glorification
in elite and intellectual circles. The devastation wrought by WW1 had an enormous impact on the
way war was thought about and discussed in elite European circles: with the exception of certain
sectors in Germany and perhaps one or two other places, it was hard after WW1 to find praise for
war in elite circles as being "healthy," "cleansing," "natural," "good for the race," "inevitable,"
and so on.
This kind of language, so easy to find in elite discourse before 1914, largely (not completely,
but largely) vanished from elite (and a lot of popular) discourse after WW1. Plenty of Anglophone
and other intellectuals before 1914 spoke about war in Social Darwinist, quasi-eugenicist terms
(although some pro-eugenicists, such as David Starr Jordan, opposed war on the grounds that it
would disproportionately kill "the best" of "the race").
'Pro-war' arguments were still made in various ways and contexts after 1918, of course, but
the character and language of those arguments changed. There were some who still adhered to the
Social Darwinist notions prevalent before the war, such as the Austro-Hungarian chief of staff,
who wrote in his memoirs after the war that it had been an inevitable result of "mankind's struggle
for existence."[*] But this kind of thinking, as already indicated, became much less prevalent
as the war dragged on and then after it ended.
---
[*] "It is in accordance with this great principle [i.e., mankind's struggle for existence]
that the catastrophe of the world war came about as a result of the motive forces in the lives
of states and peoples, like a thunderstorm which must by its nature discharge itself": Conrad
von Hoetzendorff, Aus meiner Dienstzeit , as quoted (and translated) in J. Joll, Europe
Since 1870 (Harper & Row, 1973), p.164.
Re the reference to "the motive forces in the lives of states and peoples" and the implication
that such "forces" must inevitably bring them into violent conflict: does anyone talk this way
any more? Afaik, not even writers for, e.g., The Weekly Standard or National Review
or Commentary or The American Conservative would write in this manner today.
Japan currently has a constitution that makes war illegal.
To go further it declares "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will
never be maintained." I know many Japanese who know that. I am yet to meet a German who can
provide even a garbled rendition of "Acts tending to and undertaken with intent to disturb the
peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for a war of aggression, shall be unconstitutional.
They shall be made a criminal offence. "
Gareth Wilson 10.23.16 at 6:08 am
It's more important that Japan has a public opinion that makes war unpopular.
37 Yes. And given that Japan has morphed from isolationist to empire builder and into the only
nation so far to arrive at this relatively enlightened state in only a century, or so,
I'd say the rest of us can give it at least a good go.
That topic never comes up, of course. Whatever good points a discussion on 'necessary' wars
may have, surely a better discussion is why any of us still consider all war to be anything but
a mark of failure.
38. Both are vital, but if I had to choose I'd agree. The problem is that Japan can look around
and see, with some justification, that practically no other nation sees the world the same way.
Peter T 10.23.16 at 8:56 am
faustusnotes
fear of "socialism" meaning, broadly, greater popular participation in politics was explicitly
a major factor in the German and Russian decisions for war. In both cases, they hoped victory
would shore up increasingly fragile conservative dominance. It also underlay British and French
attitudes. 1870-1914 was a very stressful time for elites.
1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some voices
in favour of negotiations, but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By the time
the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost. Fear of socialism was again a major
factor in the post-war settlements.
Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal
order. In the same way, the generation post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars as
the great disaster that shattered the happy old order. The extent of the damage and loss was much
the same in each, although World War I took 5 years to do what the French wars did in 25.
"Of course, with hindsight Hitler looks much worse than the Kaiser, but its not clear that
was true from the standpoint of 1939. At that point, Hitler had never committed genocide, but
the Kaiser had (in Namibia)."
Don't talk daft. Wilhelmine Germany was a polity that was heavily skewed towards the interests
of the aristocracies and big business, but it was also a state that respected the rule of law
and tolerated the existence of multiple political parties (including that of the organised working
class). There were no Nuremburg Laws against Jews, and German brutality in the colonies was hardly
worse than that of other empires (if anything, 'plucky little Belgium' treated its colonial subjects
the worst).
Your theory seems to come close to A.J.P. Taylor's bilge that Hitler was the logical continuation
of long-term German historical development.
Peter T 10.23.16 at 10:48 am
"Wilhelmine Germany was a polity that was heavily skewed towards the interests of the aristocracies
and big business, but it was also a state that respected the rule of law and tolerated the existence
of multiple political parties (including that of the organised working class)."
See Zabern Incident, Prussian three-class voting system, lack of control of Reichstag over
budgets or major policy areas, anti-socialist laws
Wilhelmine Germany was a complex polity, which somewhat resembled the modern US in its multiplicity
of veto points and the degree to which industrial, military and landowning elites held control
through back-channels and various institutional levers. Many of its mechanisms were deliberately
designed to provide the appearance, but not the substance, of parliamentary democracy. For instance,
the military took the largest share of the budget, but the responsible ministers were not accountable
to parliament (this is not to compare it to Hitler's regime).
"See Zabern Incident, Prussian three-class voting system, lack of control of Reichstag over
budgets or major policy areas, anti-socialist laws "
Well exactly, that is what I meant by 'heavily skewed towards the interests of aristocracies
and big business'. But all those instances are a drop in the ocean compared to Nazi Germany.
The complexity of Wilhelmine Germany was probably a result of the political failure of the
liberal bourgeoisie in Germany, and the fact that there were no major political rifts to shatter
the power of the aristocracy (it took until WWII to finally achieve this). Nevertheless, as Peter
T suggests, even though the Prussian monarchical regime retained the formal political ascendancy,
it took a byzantine institutional morass to keep different classes and political interests together,
and the Wilhelmine elite wasn't alone in seeking to maintain its position by recklessly fanning
the flames of national chauvinism. The irony was that 1914 proved that this policy was extraordinarily
successful in the short term and subsequent events showed that it was completely disastrous after
that.
George 10.23.16 at 12:24 pm
John Quiggin- The problem I was trying to suggest was that of presentism. This is an issue that
many university history departments take pains to caution their students about in courses on historiography.
Similarly these courses on historiography tend to teach that there is value in explaining the
present by looking at the past, but warn that by making past events serve present needs, history
can be distorted.
Personally I have found the essays of the late Tony Judt brilliant at explaining the present
by referring to history. In one of his essays on how the modern Belgian political system came
into being, Judt carefully dissected hundreds of years of economic, political and social to offer
an explanation. Obviously he was making a judgement call as to which facts of history were most
useful, served his purposes, but reading his essay the reader is aware that Judt is striving for
ojectivity, however elusive it might. To me this is the best kind of history writing. What the
reader chooses to do with this information, what judgements he or she might wish to make is another
matter.
German colonial policy was notably bad. German behaviour in Namibia was worse than almost any
other colonial administration. After Belgium seized Congo it had the worst record of any existing
regime.
Belgium took over Congo in 1908 before that it had been a private empire under the personal
rule of Leopold II until his behaviour led to the Belgian government confiscating it from him.
Belgian parliamentary rule, while at then bottom end of colonial administrations, was a pretty
big improvement.
Mike Schilling 10.23.16 at 6:03 pm
It seems to be received wisdom on all sides these days that Woodrow Wilson was a warmongering
hypocrite for running on a platform of peace and neutrality and then entering WWI shortly after
his reelection. But between sinking American merchant ships and conspiring with Mexico to support
an invasion of the US, I don't see that Germany gave him much choice.
Serbia, Belgium and France were directly attacked and had no choice other than fighting
or surrender. Serbia had agreed to seventeen of the twenty one demands in full, three with
reservations and rejected one.
This is a vast oversimplification especially as regards the ultimatum, as Clark makes very
clear. The ultimatum was delivered on July 23, 1914 and had 10 points (although I suppose depending
on how you count various subpoints you may get 21; this isn't especially relevant except that
I'm using 10 because that is Clark's enumeration of them). The particular sticking points for
the Serbian government were points 5 and 6, which demanded that Belgrade accept Austro-Hungarian
collaboration into the investigations of Serbian subversives (point 5) as well as into the assassination
itself (point 6). According to Clark, the initial memo circulated by Laza Pacu, who was acting
Serbian PM while the actual PM, Pasic, was campaigning for the upcoming elections, indicated that
Serbia could not possibly accede to the demands. While awaiting Pasic's return to Belgrade, Pacu
and the Prince Regent Alexander both visited Strandmann, the chief of the Russian mission, and
both insisted that they could not accept the ultimatum and sought assurances from Strandmann that
Russia would back them, even unto war (Alexander actually thought that Serbia should stall for
time, as a reply was expected within 48 hours). I quote Clark (p. 461):
All of this might seem to suggest that the Serbian political leadership came almost immediately
to the unanimous view that Serbia must resist and if necessary go to war. But these utterances
were all reported by Strandmann. It is likely that the desire to elicit Russian support encouraged
the ministers on hand in Belgrade to insist on the impossibility of acceptance. Other testimony
suggests that, among themselves, the decision-makers were deeply alarmed at the prospect of
an Austrian attack and saw no alternative to acceptance. The memory of October 1913, when Sazonov
[the Russian foreign minister] had advised Belgrade to back down in the face of an Austrian
ultimatum over Albania, was still fresh enough to nourish doubts about whether the Russians
would support Serbia in the current crisis. Ascertaining the attitude of France was difficult,
because the key French leaders were on their way back from Russia, and the French envoy Descos,
who for some time had been showing signs of strain, had collapsed and been recalled to Paris;
his replacement had not yet arrived.
Faced with this uncertainty, Pasic decided to stall until he could figure out what the Russians
would do. Regent Alexander telegrammed the Tsar, stating explicitly that Belgrade was prepared
to accept any points of the ultimatum "whose acceptance shall be advised by Your Majesty." Pasic
drafted a telegram to Serbian foreign missions indicating that Belgrade intended to offer "full
satisfaction" to Vienna and concede on all points. British correspondence from the same time indicates
that this would have included the contentious points 5 and 6.
At that point, a telegram arrived from Spalajkovic, the Serbian envoy to Russia, recounting
his conversation with Poincare (the French President) during the latter's state visit to the Tsar.
Spalajkovic reported that when he told Poincare that the situation in Belgrade was very bad, Poincare
told him, "We will help you improve it." Spalajkovic also communictated his conversation with
Sazonov, who had told him that the Russian Council of Ministers had condemned the ultimatum and
that Serbia could "count unofficially on Russian support," although there was no indication regarding
what form that support would take. A second telegram from Spalajkovic reported that Russian mobilization
might be imminent and that Russia would soon issue an official proclamation of support for Serbia.
Buoyed by the news from Russia, the Serbian government began drafting a reply to the Austrian
ultimatum. I won't get into the details of the reply, which are long, but the basic gist is that
Serbia pretended to accede to the Austrian demands, provided Austria supply conclusive evidence
on all points before any investigations would begin. I quote Clark again (p. 465):
The claim often made in general narratives that this reply represented an almost complete
capitulation to the Austrian demands is profoundly misleading. This was a document fashioned
for Serbia's friends, not for its enemy. It offered the Austrians amazingly little. Above all,
it places the onus on Vienna to drive ahead the process of opening up the investigation int
the Serbian background of the conspiracy, without, on the other hand, conceding the kind of
collaboration that would have enabled an effective pursuit of the relevant leads. In this sense
it represented a continuation of the policy the Serbian authorities had followed since 28 June:
flatly to deny any form of involvement and to abstain from any initiative that might be taken
to indicate the acknowledgment of such involvement. Many of the replies on specific points
opened up the prospect of long, querulous, and in all likelihood ultimately pointless negotations
with the Austrians over what exactly constituted 'facts and proofs' of irredentist propaganda
or conspiratorial activity by officers and officials. The appeal to 'international law' though
effective as propaganda, was pure obfuscation since there existed to international jurisprudence
for case of this kind and no international organs with the authority to resolve them in a legal
and binding way. Yet the text was perfectly pitched to convey the tone of voice of reasonable
statesmen in a condition of sincere puzzlement, struggling to make sense of outrageous and
unacceptable demands. This was the measured voice of the political, constitutional Serbia disavowing
any ties with its expansionist pan-Serbian twin in a manner deeply rooted in the history of
Serbian external relations. It naturally sufficed to persuade Serbia's friends that in the
face of such a full capitulation, Vienna had no possible ground for taking action.
In reality, then, this was a highly perfumed rejection on all points.
Continuing with Brett:
Germany and Austria-Hungary were the aggressors and actively sought war.
This is also deeply misleading and fails to take into account what Clark's research demonstrates,
which is that all of the foreign offices had various pro- and anti-war factions; this includes
Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, and Great Britain. I can't possibly do justice to the
full scope of Clark's evidence here, which spans literally hundreds of pages, but he goes to great
efforts to answer the question of who controlled foreign policy in each country. In France, for
example, a pro-war, anti-German faction, composed primarily of career foreign office civil servants
who, despite nominal subservience to the foreign secretary actually represented a kind of inner
circle that pursued its own ends, was consistently leaking anti-German slanders and pro-war propaganda
to the press. The British foreign office was likewise filled with with undersecretaries like Francis
Bertie and Arthur Nicolson, who controlled the information that reached Edward Grey in such a
way that it skewed the argument toward war. Of course Germany and Austria had their own pro- and
anti-war factions, but the simplistic painting of the two countries as "the aggressors" is a drastic
simplification of a hugely complex state of affairs.
Britain, Russia and the USA were in a position of either fighting or suffering a major foreign
policy defeat.
Again, the actual situation is far more complex. Clark says nothing about the US for the obvious
reason that the US had no meaningful participation in the July Crisis, but the situations in both
Britain and Russia were substantially more complicated. Grey was not necessarily predisposed to
war, and if he was, he had a very inconsistent way of showing it. He constantly offered ambiguous
assurances to his foreign service counterparts in both Germany and France, hinting that Britain
was likely to support France but also that there might be a way for it to remain neutral in a
conflict with Germany. Here's Clark again (p. 574):
Whichever view we take and the disagreement among historians is itself telling [ed: Clark
here is referring to the debate over documentary evidence of whether Grey "really did hold
up the prospect of British neutrality to Lichinowsky" (the German ambassador) or "perhaps he
was trying to accommodate his uncertainty about whether the British cabinet would back his
policy of support for France" (Grey having kept the actual cabinet from finding out about many
of the things he had hinted to the French) or "maybe Grey was not interested in neutrality
at all, but briefly came under pressure from his liberal imperialist ally, Lord Chancellor
Haldane, to find a way of preventing of delaying the commencement of hostilities between France
and Germany so that there would be time better to prepare and train the British Expeditionary
force."] it is clear that Grey's ambiguities were on the verge of becoming open contradictions.
To propose British neutrality, even in the face of a continental war involving France, would
have amounted to a crass reversal of the positions the foreign secretary had earlier adopted
so much so, indeed, that it is hard to believe that this was truly his intention. On the
other hand, the proposal that France and Germany should maintain an armed stand-off is unambiguously
instantiated in the documents. In a telegram dispatched to Bertie at 5.25 p.m. on 1 August,
Grey himself reported that he had put it to the German ambassador that 'after mobilisation
on the western frontier French and German armies should remain, neither crossing the border
so long as the other did not do so. I cannot say whether this would be consistent with French
obligations under here alliance.' But even this suggestion was bizarre. since it was based
on the supposition that France might be willing to abandon the Russian alliance Poincare and
his colleagues had worked so hard in recent years to reinforce. It suggests at best a very
weak grip on the realities of the wider political and military situation.
All the evidence seems to suggest that not only did Grey entirely misjudge what was happening
then, and what had been happening around him for years, but that until almost literally the last
minute he was waffling because he had no way of properly ascertaining the actual strength of his
position. For example, in a conversation with Paul Cambon, the French ambassador, on July 29,
he intimated that France was allowing itself to be "drawn into a quarrel which is not hers, but
in which, owing to her alliance, her honour and interest obliged her to engage," whereas Britain
was "free of engagements and would have to decide what British interests required the government
to do." He also claimed that it was British policy to avoid going to war over "a Balkan question."
Then two days later, when asked by Cambon directly whether Britain would help France if the latter
were attacked by Germany, he argued that the full Russian mobilization, which at this point was
in effect, was effectively forcing Germany to mobilize. Cambon himself was likewise acting on
the assumption that the Entente was much more binding than it actually was, and that it was an
instrument by which England intended to contain Germany, as per Clark (p. 539):
He failed to see that for British policy-makers, the Entente served more complex objectives."
It was, among other things, a means of deflecting the threat posed to the dispersed territories
of the British Empire by the power best placed to do them harm, namely Russia. One likely reason
for Cambon's misprision was that he came to depend too much on the assurances and advice of
the permanent under-secretary Sir Arthur Nicolson, who was passionately attached to the Russian
and the French connection and intent on seeing both hardened into a fully-fledged alliance.
But Nicolson, though influential, was not the arbiter of policy in London, and his views were
increasingly out of sync with the group around Grey, who were becoming increasingly distrustful
of Russia and increasingly open to a more pro-German (or at least less anti-German) course.
This is a classic example of how difficult even the best informed contemporaries found it to
read the intentions of allies and enemies.
The key point here is that the alliances meant entirely different things to different parties,
and that different factions within different foreign offices were engaged in significant amounts
of cross-talk in a manner which undermined any specifically unified method of setting policy.
Here again the contingent facts of the particular individuals playing particular roles carries
much more explanatory power than simple declarations of "German aggression."
Britain had guaranteed Belgian independence and the brutal German invasion (some of the
atrocity stories were false, many were not) convinced Lloyd George that war was a moral imperative,
while the attack on France was insufficient. He and his immediate supporters gave the Cabinet
a pro-war majority. So it really was about Belgium.
This is yet another drastic oversimplification. The decision in favor of intervention actually
preceded the German invasion and any atrocities that occurred; that decision came by the end of
August 2, two days before German forces crossed the Belgian border, and it was the result of particularly
skillful political maneuvering on the part of the pro-war liberals and the conservative opposition.
Prior to that meeting, the position in the cabinet had been slanted against intervention, but
the anti-interventionists were outmaneuvered by Grey, who afterwards took his case to the House
of Commons and secured British commitment to the war. But while Belgium provided one of the pretexts,
there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the British leadership held any particular brief for
Belgium as such; Grey's speech was primarily pitched in terms of a moral commitment to France
and the possibility that British naval resources would be required to defend Mediterranean trade
routes if Italy withdrew from its own commitment to neutrality. The relevant cites are on pages
544-546 in Clark's book.
This was on top of a German naval programme obviously aimed at Britain.
German naval expansion needs to be seen in the larger context of Britain's own aggressive naval
posture. In 1897, the aforementioned Francis Bertie, in conversation with the German ambassador
von Eckardstein, literally threatened war and naval blockade against Germany if any German intervention
in the Transavaal were detected. Naturally, German naval expansion was undertaken with some eye
towards counteracting British supremacy, but this was par for the course at the time. As per Clark
(p. 149), "Until the signing of the Entente Cordiale in 1904, the programmatic documents of the
French naval strategists of the jeune ecole had envisioned systematic use in the event of war
of fast, well-armed cruisers to attack commercial shipping and force the British Isles into
starvation and submission. As late as 1898, this prospect seemed real enough in British naval
circles to generate panic over the need for extra cruisers and the consolidation of domestic food
supplies." Clark goes on:
In any case, it was not the building of German ships after 1898 that propelled Britain into
closer relations with France and Russia. The decision to enter into an Entente with France
and to seek an arrangement with Russia came about primarily as a consequence of pressures on
the imperial periphery. British policy-makers were less obsessed with, and less alarmed by,
German naval building than is often supposed. British naval strategy was never focused solely
on Germany but on the need to remain dominant in a world of great naval powers including
France, Russia, and the United States. Nor did German naval construction have the mesmerizing
effect on British strategists that has sometimes been claimed for it. In 1905, the director
of British naval intelligence could confidently describe Britain's naval preponderance over
Germany as 'overwhelming.' In October 1906, Charles Hardinge, permanent under-secretary at
the foreign office, acknowledged that Germany posed no immediate naval threat to Britain .[other
expressions of same follow] There was good reason for such confidence, because the Germans
lost the naval race hands down: whereas the number of German battleships rose from thirteen
to sixteen in the years 1898-1905, the British battle fleet rose from twenty-nine to forty-four
ships. Tirpitz had aimed at achieving a ratio of one German battleship to every 1.5 British
but he never got close. In 1913, the German naval command formally and unilaterally renounced
the Anglo-German arms races, Tirpitz declaring that he was satisfied with the ratios demanded
by Britain. By 1914, Britain's lead was once again increasing. The naval scares that periodically
swept through the British press and political circles were real enough but they were driven
in large part by campaigns launched by navalists to fend off demands for funding from the cash-starved
British army.
If German aggression were not stopped now then they would be harder to stop next time if
France and Russia were German clients.
Why and how would France or Russian become German clients? From pages 159-167, which conclude
his chapter titled "The Polarization of Europe," Clark demonstrates that much of the invention
of Germany as the implacable foe of Britain was due to the machinations and memoranda written
by Bertie, Nicolson, and Eyre Crowe. This was paralleled several years later by Sazonov's aggressive
formulation of Russo-German relations, partly in reaction to the Liman von Sanders mission to
Constantinople. None of this of course means that there was literally no German aggression or
that Germany was somehow an innocent wronged party; it just means that within the contours of
European international politics circa the beginning of the 20th century, Germany did not stand
out in any particular way from any of its contemporaries.
Russia faced the destruction of its ally Serbia even after Serbia had agreed nearly all
of Austria-Hungary's demands.
As I have argued via Clark above, this is not correct; there was no such concession at all.
I apologize for the length of this response, the multiple blockquotes, and the excruciating
level of detail, but I'm trying to summarize major points from a 600-page book and this is not
easy to do in an internet comment thread. Nevertheless, I think it's really important that the
discussion around causes of WWI does not devolve into a simple morality tale of "Germany bad,
Entente good." The real picture is infinitely more complex and that complexity deserves to be
taken seriously. I don't mean to imply by any means that Clark is the last true word on this subject,
but he makes a compelling case, backed by documentary evidence, that the "canonical" (at least,
I suppose, in the popular imagination) interpretation of the July Crisis is deeply misleading.
Moreover, he places the diplomatic machinations of the various foreign offices in the broader
context of international European competition, and underlines the ways in which the offices themselves
were not unitary actors but rather home to multiple factions which operated at cross-purposes
and often made promises that stood in contrast to the official pronouncements of their own heads
of state. I can't possibly do justice to the book here, so I would encourage everyone to read
it for themselves.
1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some
voices in favour of negotiations, but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By
the time the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost. Fear of socialism was
again a major factor in the post-war settlements.
"too early . . . to settle" - I have no idea what that means.
After nearly 100 years of European wars and crises that had been small, short and decisive,
the leadership in each of the Great Powers found themselves mired in something new and horrifying
and they seemed completely unprepared to take responsibility for its conduct, its course or its
termination.
It is quite remarkable the extent to which the Great Powers heaved themselves into total war,
entailing national and imperial effort on a scale unknown since Napoleon and having done so, appear
to have had little notion of what their goals were, beyond grasping at a forlorn hope of "winning"
on the battlefield, or just staying in long enough to win a contest of attrition, without any
realistic notion of what overarching purpose was being served or appreciation of the horrific
costs being borne by human beings in the decimation of the polity and its society.
This was in contrast with the long series of crises and short wars that preceded WWI, contests
which were short and decisive, precisely because there seems to have been a coordinating consensus
on goals and means - almost as if they were playing a game with written rules and scorekeeping.
That it was played as a game is not a moral justification, of course. The human costs of such
means of rivalry and dispute resolution - not to mention the arrogance of the routine abuse of
colonial or just peripheral states and populations - doesn't present a morally admirable picture,
but it does suggest statecraft as a purposeful, managed activity.
In retrospect, one can see early signs that the rules and assumptions of "gentlemanly" imperial
rivalry were being undermined and transformed by changes in military technology and the rise of
nation-states and a more popular sort of politics, but the total breakdown seems to have been
a surprise reward for a particular sort of accumulating moral and practical incompetence. In the
Agadir Crisis, with its Panther's Spring, or the Zabern incident or l'affaire Dreyfus or the Curragh
mutiny, I see more than hints of a moral and/or practical imbecility in the old order as well
as a stubborn resistance to liberal reform.
In the event, Wilson and his Fourteen Points (January 1918) was a galvanizing intervention.
On a more subterranean level, the almost bizarre musings of the German leadership on war aims,
would have serious consequences in the inter-war period. And, of course, we are still living with
the consequences of ill-conceived efforts by the British and French and Italians to "manage" formerly
Ottoman Arabia.
bruce wilder 10.23.16 at 7:17 pm
Peter T @ 40:
Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal
order. In the same way, the generation post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars
as the great disaster that shattered the happy old order.
There's a certain sort of conservative or reactionary who is inclined to tell liberals that
World War I was a disaster that shattered a pre-war liberal order. Somebody like John Keegan will
write this way with no consciousness of controversy at all. But, it wasn't actually the liberal
order that was shattered; what was shattered was an order of hereditary aristocracy and imperialism.
Liberalism failed conspicuously in the inter-war period, but that's a different narrative if
you recognize that pre-war liberalism had come up short in its attempts to reform a non-liberal
order which collapsed in senseless violence of its own febrile making.
The trouble with saying that a generation after 1815 looked back and saw the French Revolution
and Napoleon as a disaster is that it was only a narrow, reactionary slice at the top of the steep
pyramid of political power that held this view without significant qualification and they tended
to make themselves look ridiculous when they acted as if the world had been restored to their
liking, as when Charles X tried to cure scrofula with the King's touch at his coronation in 1824.
For most people, even or especially the upper reaches of the professional classes and the bourgeoisie,
the liberal reforms of Napoleon were as inviolable as a return to general war was unthinkable.
It took half a generation to fashion that into the liberalism of compromising on incremental reform
in the context of a presumed course of inevitable progress, but that formula worked in the constitutional
reforms of the early 1830s, in at least some of the many revolutions of 1848 and became the doctrine
of a new conservatism circa 1866-71.
It was the perception of liberalism triumphant that gives a sense of a liberal order emerging
in the course of the long 19th century after 1815, but at every step the old order of hereditary
aristocracy was preserving itself and its privileges. In the consensus of elite opinion, monarchy
(somewhat qualified as constitutional monarchy to mollify liberal sensibility), not republican
democracy, is awarded pride of place as the ideal of natural political order.
Even without instruction from the likes of Keegan, I think many small-l liberals and social
democrats look back at the period before the First World War with amnesia for the reality of a
degenerate political order of hereditary aristocracy and imperialism and project some kind of
normal politics, so that WWI shatters normal civilization with the terrible consequences that
followed. Many reactionaries have roughly commensurable views that sum up as "Kaiser Wilhelm was
OK, what was the big deal?" Niall Ferguson, for example, has offered the view that Britain's entry
into war was a huge strategic error; on cost-benefit grounds, he argues that Imperial Britain
should have bided its time and conserved its resources, dealing later from relative strength with
the German Empire.
In some ways, I suppose, the erasure of historical detail is the flipside of Lind's alleged
uniformitarian science fiction narrative that Henry is writing about. Of course, Lind is almost
nostalgic for a nationalism that may be only a reactionary vestige in our time. I don't know that
qualifies as "presentism" or just a failure of imagination.
I haven't read The Sleepwalkers nor even all of your long comment above summarizing
it. But from the sentences at the end of your post you presumably realize that Clark is only one
of a number of historians who published books about WW1 and its origins around the time of the
hundredth anniversary in 2014. (Btw there have been very long threads on CT on this subject with
lots of people commenting, some with reading recommendations: e.g. J.C.G. Rohl's essays on the
origins were mentioned back then by someone who seemed to know what s/he was talking about; also
I. Hull, Absolute Destruction which is not about the origins primarily but more about German
'military culture' and the conduct of the war.) I've no reason to doubt Clark's an excellent historian,
but like every historian he has a point of view, and given the enormous extant historiography
I don't think there can be such a thing as a definitive account of the origins of WW1, and there
also can't be a purely 'objective' one.
You write:
I think it's really important that the discussion around causes of WWI does not devolve
into a simple morality tale of "Germany bad, Entente good." The real picture is infinitely
more complex and that complexity deserves to be taken seriously. I don't mean to imply by any
means that Clark is the last true word on this subject, but he makes a compelling case, backed
by documentary evidence, that the "canonical" (at least, I suppose, in the popular imagination)
interpretation of the July Crisis is deeply misleading.
I think most here would probably agree that the origins of WW1 can't be fit into "a simple
morality tale," and if that's the view of "the popular imagination," it's not right.
bruce wilder@49'"too early . . . to settle" - I have no idea what that means.'
And earlier@25: 'Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully
evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915)".
Yes, if you look only at the Western front. In the East, 1915 was objectively the year of the
fall of Serbia, and far more spectacularly the year of Gorlice-Tarnow: the enormously successful
German/Austro-Hungarian breakthrough at the western end of the Russian Carpathian front, followed
by rolling up the enemy positions in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, for 200 miles or more, in what
even the Russians called the Great Retreat: capture of Warsaw, Lvov, Brest-Litovsk, Vilna, ending
with a front line stretching from Riga to the Romanian border.
If the German command did not think that was futile, who can blame them? Do you? If peace had
been made in 1915 (and I entirely agree that might in the long run have been preferable) would
that not have meant the Central Powers keeping their conquests in Belgium, northern France, western
Russia, and Serbia?
Would that have been an acceptable ending for the Entente who could reasonably hope that
the British armies (left untrained and unequipped in 1915 by reason of the British government's
not wanting, and not preparing for, an European land war) might in 1916 achieve something? Would
it have been an acceptable ending even for the Central Powers, who after such victories in 1914-15
might reasonably hope for an even more favorable settlement after more victories in the East?
If not the latter, remember it takes two to make peace.
Gareth Wilson@20: "I haven't seen any alternate history stories where the British Empire decides
not to fight the Boer War and leaves Orange Free State and the Republic of Transvaal independent."
Given that the Boer War began with the armed forces of the Orange Free State and the Republic
of Transvaal invading British territories hence the sieges of Ladysmith, Kimberly and Mafeking
I find it hard to imagine an alternate history in which the British Empire shrugs its collective
shoulders and says, oh all right then, invade us as you please, we won't fight.
Brett Dunbar 10.23.16 at 9:11 pm
Relating to the British declaration of war the Cabinet was split. One faction already supported
intervention. Churchill was the most enthusiastic while Grey was somewhat more reluctantly in
favour. A second faction were firmly opposed, two resigned in protest. In the middle was Lloyd
George and his friends, until the invasion of Belgium he was ambivalent but on balance opposed
to a direct involvement. Grey couldn't make a commitment as the Cabinet wasn't willing to commit
to defend France.
Serbia's position was analogous with the current position of North Korea, an odious regime
which happens to be the client of a great power. Austria-Hungary backed by Germany called Russia's
bluff on Serbia, it turned out that Russia wasn't bluffing. Germany then launched an entirely
unprovoked invasion of Belgium.
53: That's true, which makes the idea of the Boer War as unnecessary even flimsier.
John Quiggin 10.23.16 at 9:54 pm
I'd be interested to read the views of the pro-war commenters above on more recent wars, particularly
those in which the US has been engaged. I can't see any difference between the pro-war cases made
above and those for Vietnam, the Iraq wars and others.
I haven't read The Sleepwalkers nor even all of your long comment above summarizing it.
But from the sentences at the end of your post you presumably realize that Clark is only one
of a number of historians who published books about WW1 and its origins around the time of
the hundredth anniversary in 2014.
Indeed, and if you read, or even skim my post, you will see that I explicitly acknowledge this
very fact.
I've no reason to doubt Clark's an excellent historian, but like every historian he has
a point of view, and given the enormous extant historiography I don't think there can be such
a thing as a definitive account of the origins of WW1, and there also can't be a purely 'objective'
one.
I don't believe I have ever claimed this, nor have I ever used the word "objective" in either
of my posts in this thread. That said, there do exist documentary records of what various actors
were doing and saying at the time; any serious historical exegesis has to take those things into
account (and of course the records themselves can often be falsified, as the Russians and French
foreign offices both did after the fact). It is my understanding from reading about Clark's work
that his greatest contribution has been precisely the depth of his excavation of this documentary
record. I brought the book into this discussion because it has been widely acknowledged as a very
valuable addition to the scholarship precisely on the strength of this work.
I think most here would probably agree that the origins of WW1 can't be fit into "a simple
morality tale," and if that's the view of "the popular imagination," it's not right.
Well, my long post was in response to several points made by Brett Dunbar, which reiterated
the idea that the war was simply a result of unchecked and unjustified German aggression. My goal
was to show, citing relevant research, that this view is mistaken. I think it is also the view
that is most often incorrectly taught at the high school and college level, but if that's not
the case then I'm perfectly willing to take back that statement.
Brett,
Relating to the British declaration of war the Cabinet was split. One faction already supported
intervention. Churchill was the most enthusiastic while Grey was somewhat more reluctantly
in favour. A second faction were firmly opposed, two resigned in protest. In the middle was
Lloyd George and his friends, until the invasion of Belgium he was ambivalent but on balance
opposed to a direct involvement. Grey couldn't make a commitment as the Cabinet wasn't willing
to commit to defend France.
The cabinet had already decided before the invasion had actually commenced that it would intervene
if it occurred. If Lloyd George was indeed ambivalent about it, he couldn't have been that
ambivalent, since he certainly allowed intervention to be put forth as the official position
of the government, which Grey did on August 3, one day before the invasion had actually commenced.
Here's some additional background that Clark gives as regards Belgian neutrality (p. 494):
Even the question of Belgium seemed unlikely to trigger an intervention. It was widely assumed,
on the basis of both military intelligence secured by the French General Staff and of military
inference, that the Germans would approach France through Belgium, breaching the 1839 international
treaty guaranteeing its neutrality. But the cabinet took the view that, while Britain was indeed
a signatory to the treaty, the obligation to uphold it fell on all the signatories collectively,
not on any one of them individually. Should the matter actually arise, they concluded, the
British response would be 'one of policy rather than obligation.' Indeed, it is striking with
what sang-froid senior British military and political leaders contemplated a German breach
of Belgian neutrality. On the basis of Anglo-French staff conversations in 1911, Henry Wilson
had come to the conclusion that the Germans would choose to cross the Ardennes through southern
Belgium, confining their troops to the area south of the rivers Sambre and Meuse; these findings
were presented to the 114th meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The same scenario
was discussed by the cabinet on 29 July, when Lloyd George showed, using a map, why it was
likely that the Germans would cross 'only the furthest southern corner' of Belgium. Far from
greeting this prospect with outrage, the minsters accepted it as strategically necessary (from
Germany's standpoint) and thus virtually inevitable. British strategic concerns were focused
primarily on Antwerp and the mouth of the river Schelde, which had always been regarded as
one of the keys to British security. 'I don't see,' Churchill commented, 'why we should come
in if they o only a little way into Belgium.' Lloyd George later claimed that he would have
refused to go to war if the German invasion of Belgium had been confined to the route through
the Ardennes. British policy-makers assumed in any case that the Belgians themselves would
not make their last stand in the south, but would, after offering token resistance to demonstrate
that they had not permitted the violation, fall back on their lines of fortification further
to the north. There would thus be nothing automatic between a German invasion of Belgium and
British intervention in the conflict.
Assuming this chronology is correct, it appears that even at a very late stage in the crisis,
the question of Belgian neutrality was not necessarily the deciding factor in the decision to
intervene. There's definitely a possible timeline in which Britain does not declare war almost
immediately following the German incursion into Belgium.
Serbia's position was analogous with the current position of North Korea, an odious regime
which happens to be the client of a great power. Austria-Hungary backed by Germany called Russia's
bluff on Serbia, it turned out that Russia wasn't bluffing. Germany then launched an entirely
unprovoked invasion of Belgium.
It's not clear that Austria-Hungary could have been said to even understand that they were
calling a bluff. Clark's argument on this point is spread out across many pages, but generally
amounts to the contention that Austria viewed the ultimatum as an affair strictly between it and
Serbia. One can (and Clark does) fault the Austrians for their short-sightedness and their failure
to properly assess the international situation, but they were certainly not alone in this.
JQ: I can't see any difference between the pro-war cases made above and those for Vietnam,
the Iraq wars and others.
Really? I don't know that I made a "pro-war case", per se, but I think I understood the cases
made. As far as I know, neither Vietnam nor Iraq (2003) attacked the United States or any formal
allies of the U.S.
A vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, the Clinton campaign has suggested in broad ways
and subtle ones, isn't just a vote for a Democrat over a Republican: It's a vote for safety over
risk, steady competence over boastful recklessness, psychological stability in the White House
over ungovernable passions.
This theme has been a winning one for Hillary, in her debates and in the wider campaign, and
for good reason. The perils of a Trump presidency are as distinctive as the candidate himself,
and a vote for Trump makes a long list of worst cases - the Western alliance system's unraveling,
a cycle of domestic radicalization, an accidental economic meltdown, a civilian-military crisis
- more likely than with any normal administration.
Indeed, Trump and his supporters almost admit as much. "We've tried sane, now let's try crazy,"
is basically his campaign's working motto. The promise to be a bull in a china shop is part of
his demagogue's appeal. Some of his more eloquent supporters have analogized a vote for Trump
to storming the cockpit of a hijacked plane, with the likelihood of a plane crash entirely factored
in.
But passing on the plane-crash candidate doesn't mean ignoring the dangers of his rival.
The dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump's authoritarian
unknowns, because we live with them in our politics already. They're the dangers of elite groupthink,
of Beltway power worship, of a cult of presidential action in the service of dubious ideals. They're
the dangers of a recklessness and radicalism that doesn't recognize itself as either, because
it's convinced that if an idea is mainstream and commonplace among the great and good then it
cannot possibly be folly.
Almost every crisis that has come upon the West in the last 15 years has its roots in this
establishmentarian type of folly. The Iraq War, which liberals prefer to remember as a conflict
conjured by a neoconservative cabal, was actually the work of a bipartisan interventionist consensus,
pushed hard by George W. Bush but embraced as well by a large slice of center-left opinion that
included Tony Blair and more than half of Senate Democrats.
Likewise the financial crisis: Whether you blame financial-services deregulation or happy-go-lucky
housing policy (or both), the policies that helped inflate and pop the bubble were embraced by
both wings of the political establishment. ...
(Crises happen. How are these two linked? The first came about because we were in the throes
of 9/11. The 2nd arguably because we were in the delayed throes of a dot.com bubble collapse.
And with a president who was out of his depth.)
likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs...
== quote ===
The dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump's authoritarian unknowns,
because we live with them in our politics already. They're the dangers of elite groupthink, of
Beltway power worship, of a cult of presidential action in the service of dubious ideals. They're
the dangers of a recklessness and radicalism that doesn't recognize itself as either, because
it's convinced that if an idea is mainstream and commonplace among the great and good then it
cannot possibly be folly.
=== end of quote ===
That looks like indirect attack on neocons which is atypical for NYT.
IMHO the main danger of Hillary presidency is the danger of WWIII due to her own jingoism and
recklessness as well as outsize neocons influence in her administration (she is the person who
promoted Cheney's associate Victoria Nuland, who got us into Ukrainian mess).
As such outweighs all possible dangers of Trump presidency by a wide margin.
Voting for Hillary is like voting for John McCain in a pantsuit in order to prevent decimation
of the remnants of the New Deal inherent in Trump administration.
Trump at least gives us some chance of dιtente with Russia.
Also he faces hostile Congress and "deep state", while Hillary is a creature of "deep state",
a marionette, if you wish, which will continue the current disastrous interventionist foreign
policy.
Of course Trump can be co-opted by "deep state" too. That's also a danger.
There is a nice cartoon, probably from Times, that I found at
Succinct exposure of continuing American psycho militaristic aggression in ME:
"The United States no longer enters wars as we did in earlier eras. Our president does not announce
that we have taken up a new cause in a distant land. Congress does not declare war, which is its
constitutional responsibility. Instead, a few buttons are pressed and, with only a brief and quickly
forgotten spurt of news stories that obscure more than they reveal, we are at war."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/10/19/plunges-into-war-with-yemen/STkGyrSwoHiCvIeP2gm6CM/story.html
That's a good piece; reasonable, and well-substantiated. I think a lot of Americans today do
not realize what a deliberate and considered process becoming involved in war is supposed to
be. He's absolutely correct that the doctrine has evolved from 'advise and consent' to 'it's
easier to obtain forgiveness than permission'.
"... Boris said this in response to the Russian and Syrian government air attacks upon Aleppo, which were certainly brutal. Then, about a week later, the West began, with clinical precision, to identify people in the last Iraqi Isis stronghold of Mosul with really radical beards and bomb them to smithereens, mercifully and humanitarianly sparing the local, decent, democratically minded citizens, who of course escaped the bombardment without so much as a graze. ..."
"... In Ukraine, Russia was the designated fall-guy for having NATO snuggled right up against its cheek, an overtly hostile military alliance which has advertised itself as Russia's enemy. ..."
"... In Crimea, similarly, Russia was looking at the probability of a NATO naval base right next door. The reasons for Russia's intervention in Syria are more complicated and were both geostrategic and economic, but had nothing whatever to do with belligerence. The USA was never invited into Syria, yet had been bombing in Syria ostensibly against ISIS, but making no secret of Washington's desire that Assad be overthrown for nearly two years before Russia stepped in, and few suggested the USA was being belligerent. ..."
"... The problem, then, is not that they are spreading misinformation, but that Russia Today is spreading truthful information which the UK government finds extremely unhelpful. Is it non-biased and non-partisan, does it always give balance and right of reply? No, no and thrice no. Does the BBC? ..."
"Andrew Mitchell was not alone in rattling the rusty sabre by suggesting we shoot down Russian
jets over Syria. We also had Boris Johnson, our Foreign Secretary, demanding - in the manner of
a clownish ayatollah - that people should protest outside the Russian embassy.
Boris said this in response to the Russian and Syrian government air attacks upon Aleppo,
which were certainly brutal. Then, about a week later, the West began, with clinical precision,
to identify people in the last Iraqi Isis stronghold of Mosul with really radical beards and bomb
them to smithereens, mercifully and humanitarianly sparing the local, decent, democratically minded
citizens, who of course escaped the bombardment without so much as a graze."
Still full of shite, of course Britain cannot seem to write anything which is not, and it's
only a matter of degree. Putin is neither overtly homophobic (I have no idea what his personal
beliefs are, which is as it should be, you should not be able to tell) nor belligerent. In
Ukraine, Russia was the designated fall-guy for having NATO snuggled right up against its cheek,
an overtly hostile military alliance which has advertised itself as Russia's enemy.
This was meant to be brought about by means of a political coup, because NATO did not want
to risk putting it to a vote, although it deliberately exaggerated the broadness of Ukrainian
enthusiasm for a European future.
In Crimea, similarly, Russia was looking at the probability of a NATO naval base right
next door. The reasons for Russia's intervention in Syria are more complicated and were both geostrategic
and economic, but had nothing whatever to do with belligerence. The USA was never invited into
Syria, yet had been bombing in Syria ostensibly against ISIS, but making no secret of Washington's
desire that Assad be overthrown for nearly two years before Russia stepped in, and few suggested
the USA was being belligerent.
The problem, then, is not that they are spreading misinformation, but that Russia Today
is spreading truthful information which the UK government finds extremely unhelpful. Is it
non-biased and non-partisan, does it always give balance and right of reply? No, no and thrice
no. Does the BBC?
There was another part of the Post
article I cited in my
last post that I wanted to address:
"The dynamic is totally different from what I saw a decade ago" when Democratic and Republican
elites were feuding over the invasion of Iraq, said Brian Katulis, a senior Middle East analyst
at the Center for American Progress. Today, the focus among the foreign policy elite is on rebuilding
a more muscular and more "centrist internationalism," he said [bold mine-DL].
Every term used in that last sentence is either misleading or flat-out wrong. A more aggressive
policy in Syria or anywhere else
shouldn't be described as "muscular" for a few reasons. For one thing, committing the U.S. to
short-sighted and ill-conceived military interventions does nothing to enhance the strength or security
of the country. Such a policy doesn't build strengthit wastes it. Calling an aggressive policy "muscular"
betrays a bias that aggressive measures are the ones that demonstrate strength, when they usually
just demonstrate policymakers' crude and clumsy approach to foreign problems. One might just as easily
describe these policies as meat-headed instead.
"Centrist" is one of the most overused and abused words in our politics. The term is often used
to refer to positions that are supposedly moderate, pragmatic, and relatively free of ideological
bias, but here we can see that it refers to something very different. Many people that are considered
to be "centrists" on the normal left-right political spectrum are frequently in favor of a much more
aggressive foreign policy than the one we have now, but that doesn't make their foreign policy a
moderate or pragmatic one. In fact, this "centrism" is not really a position in between the two partisan
extremes, both of which would be satisfied with a less activist and interventionist foreign policy
than we have today, but represents an extreme all its own.
Besides, there's nothing moderate or pragmatic about being determined to entangle the U.S.
deeper in foreign wars, and that is what this so-called "centrist" foreign policy aims to do.
Likewise, it is fairly misleading to call what is being proposed here internationalist. It
shows no respect for international law. Hawkish proposals to attack Syria or carve out "safe zones"
by force simply ignore that the U.S. has no right or authority to do either of these things.
There appears to be scant interest in pursuing international cooperation, except insofar as it is
aimed at escalating existing conflicts. One would also look in vain for working through international
institutions. The only thing that is international about this "centrist internationalism" seems to
be that it seeks to inflict death and destruction on people in other countries.
I keep trying to imagine what special interest is so invested in the no-fly zone that they
can force Hillary to keep proposing it, even though it is obviously no longer feasible. Is it
just inertia? She is so used to pushing the idea that she brings it up without thinking, and then
has to dodge out of the way? But the whole situation has passed out of the realm of rational thought.
It reminds me of Vietnam.
The idea the South and North Vietnam were separate countries was never
true, but John Foster Dulles insisted on repeating the lie at every opportunity and after a while
the Village all started to believe it.
None of the stated goals in Syria make any sense any longer
(if the ever did), but we keep pursuing them. Scary.
Please note that Hillary's path to the top was marked by proved beyond reasonable doubt DNC fraud.
With information contained in recent email leaks some DNC honchos probably might go to jail for
violation of elections laws. So for them this is a death match and people usually fight well when
they are against the wall. The same in true about Obama and his entourage.
And while this Nobel Peace Price winner managed to bomb just eight countries, Hillary might
improve this peace effort, which was definitely insufficient from the point of view of many diplomats
in State Department. Also the number of humanitarian bombs could be much greater. Here Hillary
election can really help.
From the other point of view this might well be a sign of the crisis of legitimacy of the US
ruling neoliberal elite (aka financial oligarchy).
After approximately 50 years in power the level of degeneration of the US neoliberal elite
reached the level when the quality of candidates reminds me the quality of candidates from the
USSR Politburo after Brezhnev death. Health-wise Hillary really bear some resemblance to Andropov
and Chernenko. And inability of the elite to replace either of them with a more viable candidate
speaks volumes.
The other factor that will not go away is that Obama effectively pardoned Hillary for emailgate
(after gentle encouragement from Bill via Loretta Lynch). Otherwise instead of candidate to POTUS,
she would be a viable candidate for orange suit too. Sure, the rule of law is not applicable to
neoliberal elite, so why Hilary should be an exception? But some naive schmucks might think that
this is highly improper. And be way too much upset with the fruits of neoliberal globalization.
Not that Brexit is easily repeatable in the USA, but vote against neoliberal globalization (protest
vote) might play a role.
Another interesting thing to observe is when (and if) the impeachment process starts, if she
is elected. With some FBI materials in hands of the Congress Republicans she in on the hook. A
simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article of impeachment, or the
resolution as a whole, to pass.
All-in-all her win might well be a Pyrrhic victory. And the unknown neurological disease that
she has (Parkinson?) makes her even more vulnerable after the election, then before. The role
of POTUS involves a lot of stress and requires substantial physical stamina as POTUS is the center
of intersection of all important government conflicts, conversations and communications. That's
a killing environment for anyone with Parkinson. And remember she was not able to survive the
pressure of the role of the Secretary of State when she was in much better health and has an earlier
stage of the disease.
Another interesting question, if the leaks continue after the election. That also can contribute
to the level of stress. Just anticipation is highly stressful. I do not buy the theory about "evil
Russians." This hypothesis does not survive Occam razor test. I think that there some anti-Hillary
forces within the USA ruling elite, possibly within the NSA or some other three letter agency
that has access to email boxes of major Web mail providers via NSA.
If this is a plausible hypothesis, that makes it more probable that the leaks continue. To
say nothing about possible damaging revelations about Bill (especially related to Clinton Foundation),
who really enjoyed his retirement way too much.
Those who vote for Hillary for the sake of stability need to be reminded that according to
the Minsky Theory stability sometimes can be very destabilizing
When Krugman is appointed to a top government post by Hillary Clinton we will be able to FOIA
his pay and attach a value to all the columns "electioneering" Krugman has written.
likbez -> anne...
Anne,
"An intolerably destructive essay that should never have been posted, and I assume no
such essay will be posted again on this blog. Shameful, shameful essay."
You mean that voting for the female warmonger with some psychopathic tendencies ("We came,
we saw, he died") is not shameful ?
An interesting approach I would say.
I am not fun of Trump, but he, at least, does not have the blood of innocent women and children
on his hands. And less likely to start WWIII unlike this completely out of control warmonger.
With the number of victims of wars of neoliberal empire expansion in Iraq, Libya and Syria,
you should be ashamed of yourself as a women.
Please think about your current position Anne. You really should be ashamed.
"... which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against, it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin. ..."
"... He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. ..."
"... Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it, murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more objective, of which you are even more capable of than me. ..."
"... It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent. ..."
"... And Robert Kagan explained it earlier much better ... I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary too. ..."
"...Mrs. Clinton won the Democratic nomination fairly easily..."
which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against,
it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine
if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin.
"Why do people like you pretend to love Sen Sanders so much!?"
Why do you say he is pretending? What did he write to make you think that?
Are you just a dishonest troll centrist totebagger like PGL.
Peter K. -> to pgl...
What does that have to do with anything?
He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during
the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. Are most
New Yorkers as dishonest as you, Trump, Guiliani, Christie, etc?
No. I am a fan of Sen Sanders, and not even he would believe your nonsense. History will not remember
it that way. What it will remember is how Putin Comrade meddled. And there is a price for that.
Sen Sanders wanted one, stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished
this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like you and Mr Putin
who seem to think that America is the root of all evil.
Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it,
murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing
directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more
objective, of which you are even more capable of than me.
Sen Sanders wanted one stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished
this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like --- and -- -----
who seem to think that America is the root of all evil....
[ Better to assume such an awful comment was never written, but the McCarthy-like tone to a
particular campaign has been disturbing and could prove lasting. ]
It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments
looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo
of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent.
BS, a remarkable.
No, I am sure he will be remembered more than that.
Bernard Sanders, last romantic politician to run his campaign on an average of $37 from 3,284,421
donations (or whatever Obama said at The Dinner). Remarkable but ineffectual. A good orator in
empty houses means he was practicing, not performing.
Why does Obama succeed and Sanders fail? Axelrod and co.
Peter K. -> cal... , -1
He was written off by the like of Krugman, PGL, you, KThomas etc.
He won what 13 million votes. Young people overwhelmingly voted for Sanders. He won New Hampshire,
Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, etc. etc. etc. And now the "unromantic"
complacent people have to lie about the campaign.
On September 28 the French mission to the UN claimed that two hospitals in east-Aleppo had been bombed.
It documented this in a tweet with
a picture of destroyed buildings in Gaza. The French later deleted that tweet.
It is not the first time such false claims and willful obfuscations were made by "western" officials.
But usually they shy away from outright lies.
Not so the US Secretary of State John Kerry. In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French
Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution,
he said (vid
@1:00) about Syria:
Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people
were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they
keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women.These are acts that beg for
an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held
accountable for these actions.
No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency
has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every
claimed casualty and is frequently cited in "western" media", has not said anything about such an
event anywhere in Syria.
The grave incident Kerry claimed did not happen. Kerry made it up. (Was it supposed to happen, got
canceled and Kerry missed the memo?) Kerry used the lie to call for war crime investigations and
punishment. This in front of cameras, at an official event with a foreign guest in the context of
a United Nations Security Council resolution.
This is grave. This is nearly as grave as Colin Powell's false claims of WMD in Iraq in front of
the UN Security Council.
Early reports, like
this one at CBSNEWS, repeat the Kerry claim:
Kerry said Syrian forces hit a hospital overnight, killing 20 people and wounding 100, describing
what would be the latest strike by Moscow or its ally in Damascus on a civilian target.
But the New York Times write up of the event, which includes Kerry's demand for war crime investigations,
does not mention the hospital bombing claim. Not at all. For the self-acclaimed "paper of record",
Kerry's lie did not happen. Likewise the Washington Post which in its own write up
makes no mention of the false Kerry claim.
The latest AP write up by Matthew Lee
also omits the lie. This is curious as Matt Lee is obviously aware of it. The State Departments
daily press briefing yesterday
had a whole section
on it. Video (@3:30)
shows that it is Matt who asks these questions:
QUESTION: Okay. On to Syria and the Secretary's comments earlier this morning, one is: Do you
know what strike he was talking about in his comments overnight on a hospital in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary's referring actually to a strike that we saw happen yesterday
on a field hospital in the Rif Dimashq Governorate. I'm not exactly positive that that's what
he was referring to, but I think he was referring to actually one that was --
QUESTION: Not one in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: I believe it was I think it was I think he my guess is I'm guessing here that
he was a bit mistaken on location and referring to one --
...
QUESTION: But you don't have certainty, though?
MR KIRBY: I don't. Best I got, best information I got, is that he was most likely referring to
one yesterday in this governorate, but it could just be an honest mistake.
QUESTION: If we could if we can nail that down with certainty what he was talking about --
MR KIRBY: I'll do the best I can, Matt.
...
This goes on for a while. But there was no hospital attack in Rif Dimashq nor in Aleppo. Later on
DoS spokesman Kirby basically admits that Kerry lied: "I can't corroborate that."
It also turns out that Kerry has no evidence for any war crimes and no plausible way to initiate
any official international procedure about such. And for what? To bully Russia? Fat chance, that
would be a hopeless endeavor and Kerry should know that.
Kerry is desperate. He completely lost the plot on Syria. Russia is in the lead and will do whatever
needs to be done. The Obama administration has, apart from starting a World War, no longer any way
to significantly influence that.
Kerry is only one tool of the Obama administration. Later that day the US Director of National Intelligence,
James Clapper, made other
accusations against Russia:
The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directedthe recent
compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.
The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by
the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.
Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across
Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope
and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized
these activities.
Translation: "WE DO NOT KNOW at all ("we are confident", "we believe", "directed") who did these
hacks and WE DO NOT HAVE the slightest evidence ("consistent with","based on the scope and sensitivity")
that Russia is involved, so let me throw some chaff and try to bamboozle you all."
The former British ambassador Craig Murray calls it
a
blatant neocon lie. It was obviously the DNC that manipulated the US election by, contrary to
its mandate, promoting Clinton over Sanders. The hackers only proved that. It is also easy to see
why these accusations are made now. Murray:
That the Obama administration has made a formal accusation of Russia based on no evidence is,
on one level, astonishing. But it is motivated by desperation. WikiLeaks have already announced
that they have a huge cache of other material relating to Hillary's shenanigans. The White House
is simply seeking to discredit it in advance by a completely false association with Russian intelligence.
The Obama administration is losing it. On Syria as well as on the election it can no longer assert
its will. Trump, despite all dirty boy's club talk he may do, has a significant chance to catch the
presidency. He (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) are
more disliked by the U.S electorate, than Putin (-38%). Any solution in Syria will be more in
Russia's than the Washington's favor.
Such desperation can be dangerous. Kerry is gasping at straws when he lies about Russia. The president
and his colleagues at the Pentagon and the CIA have more kinetic means to express themselves. Could
they order up something really stupid?
"... a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII. ..."
"... One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness. ..."
"... Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years. ..."
"... The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive. ..."
"... And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections. ..."
Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials
do. That plus voter suppression may hand this to Trump yet. There was an LA Times poll this month
that showed a small Trump lead. An outlier, sure, but the same poll was right about Obama in 2012
when other polls were wrong. Just saying
likbez -> Adamski... , -1
> "Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials
do."
Yes. Thank you for making this point.
Also people over 50 have more chances to understand and reject all the neoliberal bullshit
MSM are pouring on Americans.
As well as a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF)
the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly
even WWIII.
One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that
remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness.
Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of
TBTF to rip people another four years.
Not that Trump is better, but on warmongering side he is the lesser evil, for sure.
The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal
media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers,
who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism
to survive.
And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts
is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the
elections.
That's why they supposedly pump Hillary with drugs each debate :-).
"... At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain
number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in
the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt
establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight
of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect
threats to their personal safety. ..."
"... The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process
of centralization. ..."
"... People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political
will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application
of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful,
and easily overthrown. ..."
"... They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences
for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner,
whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they
forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently
culled. ..."
"... The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from
connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out
organized forms of activism. ..."
"... In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced.
Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are
instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate
entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent
ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their
own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state. ..."
"... Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads
to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything
resembling a solution, even despotism. ..."
"... Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding
liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level
of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly
distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that
their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them. ..."
"... When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government
concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines
that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant
exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police
no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.
..."
"... Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations
in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent
to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating
even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares
to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses. ..."
"... Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive
boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their
anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments
are able to kill two birds with one stone. ..."
"... Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen
spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities.
..."
"... Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think
..."
"... Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace".
Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is
sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled
as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely,
but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it. ..."
As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular
question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice
what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their
cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage
of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately,
such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day.
For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required
At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain
number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness
in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on
corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect
the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent
indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies,
and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless
herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment
and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have
to be pretty damnably oblivious.
The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process
of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition
a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger's
day is never quite done. In my recent article
'The
Essential Rules of Liberty' we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations
required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let's examine the frequently
wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control
People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political
will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application
of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful,
and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually
confronted and defeated.
Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill
apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for
standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every
corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal
that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have
been sufficiently culled.
In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another
religion, another political ideology, a "hidden" and ominous villain created out of thin air.
Autocrats assert that we "need them" in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters
bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken,
even those that dissolve our freedoms, are "for the greater good". Frightened people tend to shirk
their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective
is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality
almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked
for the sake of the group.
In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public
gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount
to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms.
The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting
with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized
forms of activism.
Through co-option, modern day tyrant's can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating
and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of
a nation on the verge of revolution. These "false paradigms" give us the illusion of proactive
organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us
from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into
meaningless battles over "left and right", or "Democrat versus Republican", for example. Only
movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of
their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to
the disasters wrought by tyranny.
In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are
enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required.
Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust
each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures
are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support.
People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore,
a potential risk to the state.
You'll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government
gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty,
and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly
hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine
upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake;
they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.
Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime
leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance
of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.
Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while
demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain
a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation
keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously
chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end
them.
This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived
notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny
right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on
every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naοve position.
Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed
nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation,
terrorism, etc.
When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government
concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed.
The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority
emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of
the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards
out to keep us subdued and docile.
As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and
small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.
At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers,
behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous
and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.
Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations
in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their
ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed,
and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person
or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the
minds of the masses.
All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders
of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already
disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media
in an attempt to make the public believe that "everyone else" must have the same exact views,
and those who express contrary positions must be "crazy", or "extremist". Events are even engineered
by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive
anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them
directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.
Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an
elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention,
and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the
truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.
Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself,
but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our
propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother
bureaucracies around the globe.
There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted
to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and "service" to this collective, sadly, is
the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and
soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for
power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate
the destinies of perfect strangers.
Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery.
Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons
of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly
unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with
persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and
a hero's status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin
to see "extremists" and "terrorists" everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start
to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members.
Free speech is effectively neutralized.
In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord
over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies
are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they
can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of
conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware.
However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put
in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America
today.
Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace".
Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality
is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those
labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is
done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it.
All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within
their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function. The real
question is, how many of the above steps will be taken before we finally refuse to conform? At
what point will each man and woman decide to break free from the dark path blazed before us and
take measures to ensure their independence? Who will have the courage to develop their own communities,
their own alternative economies, their own organizations for mutual defense outside of establishment
constructs, and who will break under the pressure to bow like cowards? How many will hold the
line, and how many will flee?
For every American, for every human being across the planet who chooses to stand immovable
in the face of the very worst in mankind, we come that much closer to breathing life once again
into the very best in us all.
"... First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market" rather than "single payer"; ..."
"... Clinton frames solutions exclusively ..."
"... Policy Sciences ..."
"... Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is the palace. ..."
"... SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street. ..."
"... Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution. ..."
"... One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework instead of building her own ideas with it. ..."
"... What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know? Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You know! ..."
"... I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing. No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate. But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring Wall St. is one method for getting money large, large amounts of money. ..."
"... A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid." ..."
"... in that context ..."
"... So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016, and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open question, but this post argues not. ..."
"... Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at 100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k for a single speech ..."
"... Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction of her speeches as mindless drivel. ..."
"... Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and that was not the case, either. ..."
"... Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompskyall those used to seem like bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people. ..."
"... What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan B" Obama is pursuing in Syria? ..."
"... The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards. ..."
"... But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding little ..."
"... Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large, however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility. A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article ..."
"... both of which present a clinical assessment that Hillary suffers from Parkinson's. Seems like an elephant in the room. ..."
"... The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory "so no quid pro quo ..."
"... The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades - that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake." ..."
"... basically, every real world policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem ..."
"... Most noticeable thing is her subservience to them like a fresh college grad afraid of his boss at his first job ..."
As readers know, WikiLeaks has
released transcripts
of the three speeches to Goldman Sachs that Clinton gave in 2013, and for which she was paid
the eyewatering sum of $675,000. (The link is to an email dated January 23, 2016, from Cllinton staffer
Tony Carrk , Clinton's research director, which pulls out
"noteworthy quotes" from the speeches. The speeches themselves are attachments to that email.)
Readers, I read them. All three of them. What surprises - and when I tell you I had to take a
little nap about halfway through, I'm not making it up! - is the utter mediocrity of Clinton's thought
and mode of expression[1]. Perhaps that explains Clinton's
otherwise inexplicable refusal to release them. And perhaps my sang froid is preternatural,
but I don't see a "smoking gun," unless forking over $675,000 for interminable volumes of shopworn
conventional wisdom be, in itself, such a gun. What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they
were paying for?
WikiLeaks has, however, done voters a favor - in these speeches, and in the DNC and Podesta email
releases generally - by giving us a foretaste of what a Clinton administration will be like, once
in power, not merely on policy (the "first 100 days"), but on how they will make decisions. I call
the speeches a "munitions dump," because the views she expresses in these speeches are bombs that
can be expected to explode as the Clinton administration progresses.
With that, let's contextualize and comment upon some quotes from the speeches
The Democrats Are the Party of Wall Street
Of course, you knew that, but it's nice to have the matter confirmed. This material was flagged
by Carrk (as none of the following material will have been). It's enormously prolix, but I decided
to cut only a few paragraphs. From
Clinton's second
Goldman speech at the AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium:
MR. O'NEILL: Let's come back to the US. Since 2008, there's been an awful lot of seismic activity
around Wall Street and the big banks and regulators and politicians.
Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now , what would be your
advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important
decisions?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and
worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you
do and the people who do it, but I do - I think that when we talk about the regulators and the
politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating,
and they had repercussions throughout the world.
That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you
know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere.
Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom [really?!].
And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding
and really politicizing [!] what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on
all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?
You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time .
And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally,
governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that
came later .
I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know,
get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being
reached.
There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get
to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry
better than anybody are the people who work in the industry .
And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where
the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations , they're
scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way
it needs to to restart economic growth.
So people are, you know, a little - they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because
they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because
of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of.
So first and foremost, more transparency, more openness, you know, trying to figure out,
we're all in this together , how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country
going. And this [finance] is, you know, the nerves, the
spinal column.
And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot
of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political
reasons , if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were
losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of
Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.
And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through
it all.
And, of course, I don't, you know, I know that banks and others were worried about continued
liability [oh, really?] and other problems down the road, so it would be better if we could
have had a more open exchange about what we needed to do to fix what had broken and then try to
make sure it didn't happen again, but we will keep working on it.
MR. O'NEILL: By the way, we really did appreciate when you were the senator from New York and
your continued involvement in the issues (inaudible) to be courageous in some respects to associated
with Wall Street and this environment. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be
an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that
includes Wall Street and Main Street.
And there's a big disconnect and a lot of confusion right now. So I'm not interested in,
you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers , but I am interested in trying to
figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence
in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment
rate [five years into the recession!].
So it's something that I, you know, if you're a realist, you know that people have different
roles to play in politics, economics, and this is an important role, but I do think that there
has to be an understanding of how what happens here on Wall Street has such broad consequences
not just for the domestic but the global economy, so more thought has to be given to the process
and transactions and regulations so that we don't kill or maim what works, but we concentrate
on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power
that exists here.
"Moving forward." And not looking back. (It would be nice to know what "continued liability"
the banks were worried about;
accounting
control fraud ? Maybe somebody could ask Clinton.) Again, I call your attention to the weird
combination of certainty and mediocrity of it; readers, I am sure, can demolish the detail. What
this extended quotation does show is that Clinton and Obama are as one with respect to the
role of the finance sector. Politico describes Obama's famous meeting with the bankster CEOs:
Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs
of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying
high salaries to their employees - and, by extension, to themselves.
"These are complicated companies," one CEO said. Offered another: "We're competing for talent
on an international market.".
But President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and
offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make
those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that.".
"My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."
And he did! He did! Clinton, however, by calling the finance sector the "the nerves, the spinal
column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did.
So, from the governance perspective, we can expect the FIRE sector to dominate a Clinton administration,
and the Clinton administration to service it. The Democrats are the Party of Wall Street. The bomb
that could explode there is corrupt dealings with cronies (for which the Wikileaks material provides
plenty of leads).
Clinton Advocates a "Night Watchman" State
The next quotes are shorter, I swear! Here's a quote from
Clinton's third
Goldman speech (not flagged by Carrk, no doubt because hearing drivel like this is perfectly
normal in HillaryLand):
SECRETARY CLINTON: And I tell you, I see any society like a three-legged stool. You have to
have an active free market that gives people the chance to live out their dreams by their own
hard work and skills. You have to have a functioning, effective government that provides
the right balance of oversight and protection of freedom and privacy and liberty and all the rest
of it that goes with it . And you have to have an active civil society. Because there's
so much about America that is volunteerism and religious faith and family and community activities.
So you take one of those legs away, it's pretty hard to balance it. So you've got to get back
to getting the right balance.
Apparently, the provision
of public services is not within government's remit -- What are Social Security and Medicare?
"All the rest of it"? Not only that, who said the free market was the only way to "live
out their dreams"? Madison, Franklin, even Hamilton would have something to say about that! Finally,
which one of those legs is out of balance? Civil society? Some would advocate less religion in politics
rather than more, including many Democrats. The markets? Not at Goldman? Government? Too much militarization,
way too little concrete material benefits, so far as I'm concerned, but Clinton doesn't say, making
the "stool" metaphor vacuous.
From a governance perspective, we can expect Clinton's blind spot on government's role in provisioning
servies to continue. Watch for continued privatization efforts (perhaps aided by Silicon Valley).
On any infrastructure projects, watch for "public-private partnerships." The bomb that could explode
there is corrupt dealings with a different set of cronies (even if the FIRE sector does
have a finger in every pie).
Clinton's Views on Health Care Reflect Market Fundamentalism
MR. O'NEILL: [O]bviously the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the supreme court. It's
clearly having limitation problems [I don't know what that means]. It's unsettling, people still
- the Republicans want to repeal it or defund it. So how do you get to the middle on that clash
of absolutes?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is not the first time that we rolled out a big program with the
limitation problems [Clinton apparently does].
I was in the Senate when President Bush asked and signed legislation expanding Medicare benefits,
the Medicare Part D drug benefits. And people forget now that it was a very difficult implementation.
As a senator, my staff spent weeks working with people who were trying to sign up, because
it was in some sense even harder to manage because the population over 65, not the most computer-literate
group, and it was difficult. But, you know, people stuck with it, worked through it.
Now, this is on - it's on a different scale and it is more complex because it's trying to create
a market. In Medicare, you have a single market , you have, you know, the government
is increasing funding through government programs [sic] to provide people over 65 the drugs they
needed.
And there were a few variations that you could play out on it, but it was a much simpler market
than what the Affordable Care Act is aiming to set up.
Now, the way I look at this, Tim, is it's either going to work or it's not going to work.
First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market"
rather than "single payer"; but then
Clinton erases single payer whenever possible . Second, Clinton frames solutions exclusively
in terms of markets (and not the direct provision of services by government);
Obama does the same on health care in JAMA , simply erasing the possibility of single payer.
Third, rather than advocate a simple, rugged, and proven system like Canadian Medicare (single payer),
Clinton prefers to run an experiment ("it's either going to work or it's not going to work")
on the health of millions of people (and, I would urge, without their informed consent).
From a governance perspective, assume that if the Democrats propose
a "public option," it will be miserably inadequate. The bomb that could explode here is the ObamaCare
death spiral.
The Problems Are "Wicked," but Clinton Will Be Unable to Cope With Them
MR. BLANKFEIN: The next area which I think is actually literally closer to home but where American
lives have been at risk is the Middle East, I think is one topic. What seems to be the ambivalence
or the lack of a clear set of goals - maybe that ambivalence comes from not knowing what outcome
we want or who is our friend or what a better world is for the United States and of Syria, and
then ultimately on the Iranian side if you think of the Korean bomb as far away and just the Tehran
death spot, the Iranians are more calculated in a hotter area with - where does that go? And I
tell you, I couldn't - I couldn't myself tell - you know how we would like things to work out,
but it's not discernable to me what the policy of the United States is towards an outcome either
in Syria or where we get to in Iran.
MS. CLINTON: Well, part of it is it's a wicked problem , and it's a wicked
problem that is very hard to unpack in part because as you just said, Lloyd, it's not clear
what the outcome is going to be and how we could influence either that outcome or a different
outcome.
(I say "cope with" rather than "solve" for reasons that will become apparent.) Yes, Syria's bad,
as vividly shown by Blankfein's fumbling question, but I want to focus on the term "wicked problem,"
which comes from the the field of strategic planning, though it's also infiltrated
information technology
and management
theory . The concept originated in a famous paper by Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber
entitled: "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning" (PDF), Policy Sciences 4 (1973), 155-169.
I couldn't summarize the literature even if I had the time, but here is Rittel and Webber's introduction:
There are at least ten distinguishing properties of planning-type problems, i.e. wicked ones,
that planners had better be alert to and which we shall comment upon in turn. As you will see,
we are calling them "wicked" not because these properties are themselves ethically deplorable.
We use the term "wicked" in a meaning akin to that of "malignant" (in contrast to "benign") or
"vicious" (like a circle) or "tricky" (like a leprechaun) or "aggressive" (like a lion, in contrast
to the docility of a lamb). We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by
implying malicious intent. But then, you may agree that it becomes morally objectionable for the
planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely,
or to refuse to recognize the inherent wickedness of social problems.
And here is a list of Rittel and Webber's ten properties of a "wicked problem" (
and a critique ):
There is no definite formulation of a wicked problem Wicked problems have no stopping rule Solutions
to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. There is no immediate and no ultimate
test of a solution to a wicked problem. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation";
because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions,
nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the
plan. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. Every wicked problem can be considered to be
a symptom of another [wicked] problem. The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous
ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution. [With wicked
problems,] the planner has no right to be wrong.
Of course, there's plenty of controversy about all of this, but if you throw these properties
against the Syrian clusterf*ck, I think you'll see a good fit, and can probably come up with other
examples. My particular concern, however, is with property #3:
Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad
There are conventionalized criteria for objectively deciding whether the offered solution to
an equation or whether the proposed structural formula of a chemical compound is correct or false.
They can be independently checked by other qualified persons who are familiar with the established
criteria; and the answer will be normally unambiguous.
For wicked planning problems, there are no true or false answers. Normally, many parties are
equally equipped, interested, and/or entitled to judge the solutions, although none has the power
to set formal decision rules to determine correctness. Their judgments are likely to differ widely
to accord with their group or personal interests, their special value-sets, and their ideological
predilections. Their assessments of proposed solutions are expressed as "good" or "bad" or, more
likely, as "better or worse" or "satisfying" or "good enough."
(Today, we would call these "many parties" "stakeholders.") My concern is that a Clinton administration,
far from compromising - to be fair, Clinton does genuflect toward "compromise" elsewhere - will try
to make wicked planning problems more tractable by reducing the number of parties to policy decisions.
That is, exactly, what "irredeemables" implies[2], which is unfortunate, especially when the cast
out amount to well over a third of the population. The same tendencies were also visible in the Clinton
campaigns approach to Sanders and Sanders supporters, and the general strategy of bringing the Blame
Cannons to bear on those who demonstrate insufficient fealty.
From a governance perspective, watch for many more executive orders acceptable to neither right
nor left, and plenty of decisions taken in secret. The bomb that could explode here is the
legitimacy of a Clinton administration, depending on the parties removed from the policy discussion,
and the nature of the decision taken.
Conclusion
I don't think volatility will decrease on November 8, should Clinton be elected and take office;
if anything, it will increase. A ruling party in thrall to finance, intent on treating government
functions as opportunities for looting by cronies, blinded by neoliberal ideology and hence incapable
of providing truly universal health care, and whose approach to problems of conflict in values is
to demonize and exclude the opposition is a recipe for continued crisis.
NOTES
[1]
Matt Taibbi takes the view that "Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she
came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and
unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers." I don't buy it. It all read like the same old Clinton
to me, and I've read a lot of Clinton (see, e.g.,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here , and
here ).
[2] One is irresistibly reminded of Stalin's "No man, no problem," although some consider Stalin's
methods to be unsound. oho
October 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm
I had never read this article before. Near perfect diagnosis and even more relevant today than
it was then. For everyone's benefit, the central thesis:
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the
powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market
governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time,
genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are
the controlling shareholders.
Of course, the U.S. is unique. And just as we have the world's most advanced economy, military,
and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy.
In a primitive political system, power is transmitted through violence, or the threat of
violence: military coups, private militias, and so on. In a less primitive system more typical
of emerging markets, power is transmitted via money: bribes, kickbacks, and offshore bank accounts.
Although lobbying and campaign contributions certainly play major roles in the American political
system, old-fashioned corruption-envelopes stuffed with $100 bills-is probably a sideshow today,
Jack Abramoff notwithstanding.
Instead, the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of
cultural capital-a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good
for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street
was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors
to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the
way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it
benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions
and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world.
A hypothesis (at least for "Main Street") proven true between 2009 and 2016:
Emerging-market countries have only a precarious hold on wealth, and are weaklings globally.
When they get into trouble, they quite literally run out of money -- or at least out of foreign
currency, without which they cannot survive. They must make difficult decisions; ultimately,
aggressive action is baked into the cake. But the U.S., of course, is the world's most powerful
nation, rich beyond measure, and blessed with the exorbitant privilege of paying its foreign
debts in its own currency, which it can print. As a result, it could very well stumble along
for years-as Japan did during its lost decade-never summoning the courage to do what it needs
to do, and never really recovering.
Lastly, the "bleak" scenario from 2009 that today looks about a decade too early, but could
with minor tuning (Southern instead of Eastern Europe, for example) end up hitting in a big way:
It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central
Europe collapses, and-because eastern Europe's banks are mostly owned by western European banks-justifiable
fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits
and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated,
and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic
worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto
both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration's current budget are increasingly
seen as unrealistic, and the rosy "stress scenario" that the U.S. Treasury is currently using
to evaluate banks' balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.
The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump "cannot be as
bad as the Great Depression." This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse
than the Great Depression-because the world is now so much more interconnected and because
the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries,
a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances.
If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on
the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.
That's a good reminder to us at NC that not all our readers have been with us since 2009 and
may not be familiar with the great financial crash and subsequent events. I remember reading the
Johnson article when it came out. And now, almost eight years later
There's a reason that there's a "Banana Republic" category. Every time I read an article about
the political economy of a second- or third-world country I look for how it applies to this country,
and much of the time, it does, particularly on corruption.
We truly must consider the possibility Goldman wrote the 3 speeches, then paid Hillary to give
them.
Next, leak them to Wiki. Everything in them is pretty close to pure fiction but it is neolib
banker fiction. Just makes it all seem more real when they do things this way.
Yike's, I'm turning into a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Don't fall for the 'status quo's' language Jedi mind trick crazyboy. I like to call myself
a "sane conspiracy theorist." You can too!
As for H Clinton's 'slavish' adherence to the Bankster Ethos; in psychology, there is the "Stockholm
Syndrome." Here, H Clinton displays the markers of "Wall Street Syndrome."
Ugh. Mindless drivel. Talking points provided by Wall St itself would sound identical.
Then there's this: She did NOT represent Wall St and the Banks while a Senator. They cannot
vote. They are not people. They are not citizens. She represented the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE that
can VOTE. You cannot represent a nonexistent entity like a corporation as an ELECTED official.
You can ONLY represent those who actually can, or do, vote. End of story.
I saw a video in high school years back that mentioned a specific congressional ruling that
gave Congress the equivalent to individual rights. I swear it was also in the 30s but I cannot
recall and have never been able to find what it was I saw. Do you have any insight here?
Historical Background and Legal Basis of the Federal Register / CFR Publications System
Why was the Federal Register System Established ?
New Deal legislation of the 1930's delegated responsibility from Congress to agencies to
regulate complex social and economic issues
Citizens needed access to new regulations to know their effect in advance
Agencies and Citizens needed a centralized filing and publication system to keep track of rules
Courts began to rule on "secret law" as a violation of right to due process under the Constitution
But don't forget. She is the most qualified candidate EVER . Remind me again
how this species was able to bring three stranded Apollo 13 astronauts back from the abyss, the
vacuum of space with some tape and tubing.
This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously
false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.
Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested
in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward
in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is
the palace.
The show is disappointing, the debaters play at talking nuclear policy, but have *nothing*
to say about Saudi Arabia's new arsenal.
When politicos talk nuclear, they only mean to allege a threat to Israel, blame Russia, or
fear-monger the North Koreans.
We're in the loop, but only the quietest whispers of the conflict in Pakistan are available.
It sounds pretty serious, but there is only interest in attacking inconvenient Arabs.
On Trump, what an interesting study in communications. The no man you speak of. Even himself
caught between his own insincerity towards higher purpose and his own ego as 'the establishment'
turns on him.
The proles of his support are truely a silent majority. The Republicans promised us Reagan
for twenty years, and it's finally the quasi-Democrat Trump who delivers.
> This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously
false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.
+100
With a wall of American flags waving in the background as the smoke and flames rise.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to
be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and
that includes Wall Street and Main Street.
this all reads like a cokehead's flow of consciousness on some ethereal topic with no intellectual
content on the matter to express. I would have said extemporaneous, but you know it was all scripted,
so that's even worse.
PHOTOJOURNALIST
"Do you know what the man is saying? Do you? This is dialectics.
It's very simple dialectics. One through nine, no maybes, no
supposes, no fractions - you can't travel in space, you can't go out
into space, you know, without, like, you know, with fractions - what
are you going to land on, one quarter, three-eighths - what are you
going to do when you go from here to Venus or something - that's
dialectic physics, OK? Dialectic logic is there's only love and hate, you
either love somebody or you hate them."
"Da5id's voice is deep and placid, with no trace of stress. The syllables roll off his tongue
like drool. As Hiro walks down the hallway he can hear Da5id talking all the way. 'i ge en i ge
en nu ge en nu ge en us sa tu ra lu ra ze em men .'" Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
Completely agree. When I first read excerpts from her speeches, I was appalled at the constant
use of "you know" peppering most of her sentences. To me, people who constantly bifurcate sentences
with "you know" are simply blathering. They usually don't have any in-depth knowledge of the subject
matter on which they are opining. Compare Hillary being asked to comment on a subject with someone
such as Michael Hudson or Bill Black commenting on a subject and she simply sounds illiterate.
I have this feeling that her educational record is based on an ability to memorize and parrot
back answers rather than someone who can reach a conclusion by examining multiple concepts.
Here's what I don't understand: The lady (and her husband) have LOADS of money. Yet this is
the best that she can do?
Really?
Heck, if I had half the Clintons' money, I'd be hiring the BEST speechwriters, acting coaches,
and fashion consultants on the planet. And I'd be taking their advice and RUNNING with it. Sheesh.
Some people have more money than sense.
Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate
and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in
a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further
fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution.
Its in the culture: Podesta does it, Blumenthal does it
And now they blame the Russians!!!! Imagine the lunacy within the white house if this fool
is elected.
I think she is just not that smart. Maybe intelligent but not flexible enough to do much with
it.
Smart people seek the advice of even smarter people and knowing that experts disagree, they
make sure that there is dissent on the advisory team. Then they make up their mind.
One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent
advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on
the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will
not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework
instead of building her own ideas with it.
I don't think so. The "you know" has a name, it's called a "verbal tick" and is one of the
first things that is attacked when one learns how to speak publicly. Verbal ticks come in many
forms, the "ums" for example, or repeating the last few words you just said, over and over again.
The brain is complex. The various parts of the brain needed for speech; cognition, vocabulary,
and vocalizations, actually have difficulty synchronizing. The vocalization part tends to be faster
than the rest of the brain and can spit out words faster than the person can put them together.
As a result, the "buffer" if you will runs empty, and the speech part of the brains simply fills
in the gaps with random gibberish.
You can train yourself out of this habit of course but it's something that takes practice.
So I take HRC's "you know" as evidence that these are unscripted speeches and is directly improvising.
How come her responses during the debates are not peppered with these verbal ticks. At least,
I don't recall her saying you know so many times. Isn't she improvising then?
As Lambert said, HRC doesn't do unscripted. The email leaks even sends us evidence that her
interviews were scripted and town hall events were carful staged. Even sidestepping that however,
dealing with verbal ticks is not all that difficult with a bit of practice and self-awareness.
"You know" is an insidious variation on "like" and "andum", the latter two being bias neutral
forms of mental vapor lock of tbe speech center pausing for higher level intellectual processes
to refill the speech centers tapped out RAM.
The "you know" variant is an end run on the listener's cognitive functions logic filters. Is
essence appropriating a claim to the listener.
I detest "you knows" immediately with "no i dont know, please explain."
The same with "they say" i will always ask "who are they?"
I think this is important to fo do to ppl for no ofher reason thanto nake them think critically
even if it is a fleeting annoyance.
Back on HRC, i have maintai we that many people overrate her intellectual grasp. Personally
I think she is a hea ily cosched parrot. "The US has achieved energy independence" . TILT. Just
because you state things smugly doesnt mean its reality.
I think what I call the lacunae words are really revealing in people's speech. When she says
"you know" she is emphasizing that she and the listener both know what she is "talking around."
Shared context as a form of almost - encryption, you could say. "This" rather than '"finance"
Here rather than at Goldman.I don't know what you'd call it exactly- free floating referent? A
habit, methinks, of avoiding being quoted or pinned down. It reminds me of the leaked emails everyone
is very careful to talk around things and they can because they all know what they are talking
about. Hillary is consistently referred to, in an eerie H. Rider Haggard way, as "her" - like
some She Who Must Not Be Named.
What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know?
Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You
know!
This election cycle just proves how bad things have become. The two top presidential candidates
are an egotistical ignoramus and the quintessential establishment politician and they are neck
and neck because the voting public is Planet Stupid. Things will just continue to fall apart in
slow motion until some spark (like another financial implosion) sets off the next revolution.
"Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice
to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important
decisions?
"SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you [Wall St] for eight years."
I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing.
No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate.
But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we
need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that
for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring
Wall St. is one method for getting money large, large amounts of money.
I heard similar impressions of her at the time, from women who had dealt with her: Book smart.
Street smart. Likeable. But what might have been the best compromise you could get in one decade,
may have needed re-thinking as you moved along in time. The cast of players changes. Those who
once ruled are now gone. Oh, but the money! And so old ideas can calcify. I'm not suggesting that
Trump is even in the ballpark in terms of making compromises, speeches, life changes or anything
else to have ever been proud of. Still, the capacity to grow and change is important in a leader.
So where are we going now?
A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid."
I've said this once, but I'll say it again: After the 2008 caucus debacle, Clinton fired the
staff and rejiggered the campaign. They went to lots of small venues, like high school
gyms - in other words, "deplorables" territory - and Clinton did her detail, "I have a plan" thing,
which worked really well in that context because people who need government to deliver
concrete material benefits like that, and rightly. They also organized via cheap phones, because
that was how to reach their voters, who weren't hanging out at Starbucks. And, history being written
by the winners, we forget that using that strategy, Clinton won all the big states and (if all
the votes are counted) a majority of the popular vote. So, good decision on her part. And so from
that we've moved to the open corruption of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton campaign apparatus
that takes 11 people to polish and approve a single tweet.
So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016,
and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that
will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open
question, but this post argues not.
"Apparently, the provision of public services is not within government's remit! What are Social
Security and Medicare? "
What is the US Post Office? Rumor has it that the PO is mentioned in the US Constitution, a
fact that is conveniently forgotten by Strict Constructionists.
With respect to regulation, I think it should be less a case of quantity, and more one of quality,
but Clinton seems to want to make it about finding the sweet spot of exactly how many regulations
will be the right amount.
In general, when companies are willing to spot you $225,000 to speak for some relatively short
period of time, willing to meet your demands regarding transportation, hotel accommodations, etc.,
why would you take the chance of killing the goose that's laying those golden eggs by saying anything
likely to tick them off?
I'd like to think she's kind of embarrassed to have people see how humdrum/boring her speeches
were for how much she was paid to give them, but I think there's got to be more "there" somewhere
that she didn't want people to be made aware of and it doesn't necessarily have to be Americans,
it could be something to do with foreign governments, foreign policy, trade, etc.
After learning how many people it takes to send out a tweet with her name on it, I have no
idea how she managed this speech thing, unless one of her requirements was that she had to be
presented with all questions in advance, so she could be prepared.
I am more depressed by the day, as it's really beginning to sink in that she's going to be
president, and it all just makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.
Also the "Wicked Problems" definitions are very, very interesting. Thank you for bringing those
in! I would add that these wicked problems lead to more wicked problems. It is basically dishonesty,
and to protect the lie you double down with more, and more, and more . Most of Clinton's decisions
and career seem to be knots of wicked problems.
The wicked problem is quickly becoming our entire system of governance. Clinton has been described
as the malignant tumor here before, but even she is a place holder for the rot. One head of the
Hydra that I feel Establishment players would generally be okay with sacrificing if it came to
it (and maybe I am wrong therebut it seems as if a lot of the push fro her comes from her inner
circle and others play along).
Hail Hydra! Immortal Hydra! We shall never be destroyed! Cut off one limb and two more shall
take its place! We serve the Supreme Hydra, as the world shall soon serve us!
I've heard/read in some places Hillary Clinton described as a "safe pair of hands". I don't
understand where this characterization comes from. She's dangerous.
If she wins with as strong of an electoral map as Obama in '08, she'll take it as a strong
mandate and she'll have an ambitious agenda and likely attempt to overreach. I've been meaning
to call my congressional reps early and say "No military action on Syria, period!"
She might use a "public option" as an ACA stealth bailout scheme, but I don't think the public
has much appetite to see additional resources being thrown at a "failed experiment". I worry that
Bernie's being brought on board for this kind of thing. He should avoid it.
Is she crazy enough to go for a grand bargain right away? That seems nutty and has been a "Waterloo"
for many presidents.
Remember how important Obama's first year was. Bailouts and ACA were all done that first year.
How soon can we put President Clinton II in lame duck status?
Not really surprised by the intellectual and rhetorical poverty demonstrated by these speeches.
Given the current trajectory of our politics, the bar hasn't really been set very high. In fact
it looks like we're going to reach full Idiocracy long before originally predicted.
You ask, " What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for? "
But I think you know. Corruption has become so institutionalized that it is impossible to point
to any specific Quid Pro Quo. The Quo is the entire system in which GS operates and the care and
feeding of which the politicians are paid to administer.
We focus on HRC's speeches and payments here but I wonder how many other paid talks are given
to GS each year by others up and down the influence spectrum. As Bill Black says, a dollar given
to a politician provides the largest possible Return on Investment of any expenditure. It is Wall
Street's long-term health insurance plan.
Yeah we know which part of the "stool" we'll be getting.If the finance sector is "the nerves,
the spinal column" of the country, I suggest the country find a shallow pool in which to shove
it head first.
I skimmed the /. comments on a story about this yesterday; basically everyone missed the obvious
and went with vox-type responses ("she's a creature of the system / in-fighter / Serious Person").
"So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers,
but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way
forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and
consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate [five years into the recession!]."
Basically, even better than a get out of jail free card, in that it is rather a promise that
we won't go back and ever hold you responsible, and we have done the best we could so far to avoid
having you own up to anything or be held accountable in any way beyond some niggling fines, which
of course, you are happy to pay, because in the end, that is simply a handout to the legal industry,
who are your best drinking buddies.
The latter part of that quote is just mumbo jumbo non-sequitir blathering. Clinton appears
to know next to nothing about finance, only that it generates enormous amounts of cash for the
oh so deserving work that God told them to do.
+1 exactly: There will be no retrospective prosecutions and none in the future either, trust
me! Not the she is any better than Eric Holder but she is certain she should be paid more than
him.
Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at
100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing
except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k
for a single speech
I've only skimmed through the speech transcripts; did I miss something of substance?
Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual
fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction
of her speeches as mindless drivel.
However, you may be overthinking the "wicked problem" language. While it is certainly
possible that she is familiar with the literature that you cite, nothing else in her speeches
suggests that she commands that level of intellectual detail. This makes me think that somewhere
along the line she befriended someone from the greater Boston area who uses "wicked" the way Valley
Girls use "like". When I first heard the expression decades ago, I found it charming and incorporated
it into my own common usage. And I don't use it anything like you describe. To me it is simply
used for emphasis. Nothing more or less than that, but I am amused to see an entire literature
devoted to the concept of a "wicked problem".
I remain depressed by this election. No matter how it turns out, it's going to wicked suck
; )
I think the inarticulateness/cliche infestation is a ploy and a deflection; this is a very
intelligent woman who can effectively marshall language when she feels the need. That need was
more likely felt in private meetings with the inner cabal at Goldman.
Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and
that was not the case, either.
Finally, as a thought experiment, I'd like to suggest that, granting that Clintonismo will
privilege those interests which best fortify their arguments with cash, it's also true that Bill
and Hillary are all about Bill and Hillary. In other words, it could be that she has the same
hustler's disregard toward the lumpen Assistant Vice Presidents filling that room at GS as she
does for the average voter. Thus, the empty, past-their-expiration-date calories.
Sure, she'll take their money and do their bidding, but why even bother to make any more effort
than necessary? On a very primal level with these two, it's all about the hustle and the action,
and everyone's a potential rube.
As in, when Bill put his presidency on the line, the base were expected to circle the wagons.
As in, "I'm With Her". Not "She's With Us", natch. It's *always* about the Clintons.
"Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting,
reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all
the answers."
seriously, matt taibbi? next, i would like to hear about the positive, feelgood, warmfuzzy
qualities of vampire squids (hugs cthulhu doll).
Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompskyall those used to seem like
bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should
henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets
on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people.
agree w you except about Bernie. he always said he'd support the nominee. the suddenness of
his capitulation has led many of us to believe he was threatened. somewhere I read something about
"someone" planting kiddieporn on his son's computer if he didn't do I dunno. I reserve judgement
on Sanders until I learn more, . if i ever do
Clinton's remarks were typically vague, as one might expect from a politician; she doesn't
want to be pinned down. This may be part of the banality of her remarks.
What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for
a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying
this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor
of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear
war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon
used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan
B" Obama is pursuing in Syria?
In the Russian press every day for a long time now they have been discussing the prospect of
a conflict. Russia has been conducting civil defense drills in its cities and advised its citizens
to recall any children living abroad. This is never reported in our press, which only presents
us with caricatures of Putin. Russians are not taken seriously.
During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war
must not be allowed.
No it wasn't. Far from it. By some miracle, the globe escaped instant incineration but only
barely. The Soviets, to their credit, were not about to risk nuclear annihilation to get one
up on the US of Perfidy. Our own Dauntless Warriors were more than willing, and I believe it's
only through dumb luck that a first strike wasn't launched deliberately or by deliberate "accident."
Review the Cold War concept of Brinkmanship.
The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of
which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane
ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards.
But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding
little
Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large,
however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility.
A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban
missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article
" "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did."
But this description is technically true. That is finance's proper function, co-ordinating
the flow of capital and resources, especially from where they're in excess to where they're needed.
It's a key decision-making system for the economy, preferably not for society as a whole. That
would be the political system.
So on this basic level, the problem is that finance, more and more, has put its own institutional
and personal interests ahead of its proper function. It's grown far too huge, and stopped performing
its intended function redistributing resources in favor of just accumulating them, in the
rather illusory form of financial instruments, some of them pure vapor ware.
So yes, this line reflects a very bad attitude on Hillary's part, but by misappropriating a
truth pretty typical propaganda.
No, finance does NOT "channel resources". Wash your mouth out. This is more neoliberal cant.
Financiers do not make investments in the real economy. The overwhelming majority of securities
trading is in secondary markets, which means it's speculation. And when a public company decides
whether or not to invest in a new project, it does not present a prospectus on that new project
to investors. It runs the numbers internally. For those projects, the most common source of funding
is retained earnings.
Clinton shows that she is either a Yale Law grad who does not have the slightest idea that
Wall Street does very little in the economy but fleece would-be investors, or that she is an obsequious
flatterer of those from whom she openly takes bribes.
Having heard Hillary, Chelsea (yes, she's being groomed) and many, many other politicians over
the years, including a stint covering Capitol Hill, Mme C's verbal style does not surprise to
me at all but rather strikes me as perfectly serviceable. It is a mellifluous drone designed to
lull the listener into thinking that she is on their side, and the weakness of the actual statements
only becomes clear when reading them on the page later (which rarely happens). The drowsy listener
will catch, among the words strung together like Christmas lights, just the key terms and concepts
that demonstrate knowledge of the brief and a soothing layer of vague sympathy. Those who can
award her $600K can assume with some confidence that, rhetoric aside, she will be in the tank
when needed. The rest of us have to blow away the chaff and peer into the yawning gaps lurking
behind the lawyerly parsing. In all fairness, this applies to 90% of seekers of public office.
The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional
wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory
"so no quid pro quo here" bribe.
Who on earth gives up their vote to a politician who is so shameless an corrupt that she openly
accepts bribes from groups who equally shamelessly and corruptly are looting the commons? Apparently
many, but not me.
Nothing like making lemons out of lemonade, is there?
There really is a question why she didn't do this doc dump herself when Bernie asked. Yeah,
sure, she would have been criticized ("damned if you do, damned if you don't") but because of
who she is she'll be criticized no matter what. There is nothing she can do to avoid it.
Not only is there no smoking gun, it's almost as if she's trying to inject a modicum of social
conscience into a culture that has none. And no, she isn't speaking artfully; nor is she an orator.
Oh. Not that we didn't know already.
The most galling aspect is her devotion to the neoLibCon status quo. Steady as she goes. Apparently
a lot of people find the status quo satisfactory. Feh.
If this document dump came out during the primary campaign, then HRC may have lost. Even Black,
Southern ladies can smell the corrupting odor clinging to these "speeches".
Given the way DNC protected her during the primaries, and what looked like a pretty light touch
by Bernie and (who? O'Malley was it?) toward her, I doubt these speeches would have been her undoing.
Dull and relatively benign, and policy-wise almost identical to Obama's approach to the bankers'
role in the economic unpleasantness. "Consensus" stuff with some hint of a social conscience.
Not effective and not enough to do more than the least possible ("I told them they ought to
behave better. Really!") on behalf of the Rabble.
But not a campaign killer. Even so, by not releasing transcripts during the primary, she faced
- and still faces - mountains of criticism over it. No escape. Not for her.
I'm not sure that's an appropriate strategy for dealing with multiple interlocking wicked problems,
but I'm not sure why. Suppose we invoke the Precautionary Principle - is incremental change
really the way to avoid harm?
The Consensus (of Opinions That Matter) says it is. On the other hand, blowing up the System
leads to Uncertainty, and as we know, we can't have that. Mr. Market wouldn't like it
The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really
odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades -
that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain
of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was
particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential
to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major
task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake."
So while I think you are wrong that the speeches wouldn't have hurt her in the primary, I also
think Huma would have had to knock her out and tie her up (not in a fun way) to get those speeches
released.
I can't imagine a worse temperament to govern, particularly under the conditions she'll be
facing. But she'll be fully incompetent before too long, so I don't suppose it matters that much.
I'm morbidly curious to see how long they can keep her mostly hidden and propped up for limited
appearances, before having to let Kaine officially take over. Will we be able to figure out who's
actually in power based on the line-up on some balcony?
Fair points, though the "temperament" issue may be one that follows from the nature of the
job - even "No Drama Obama" is said to have a fierce anger streak, and secrecy, controlling behavior,
and refusing to admit error is pretty typical of presidents, VPs, and other high officials. The
King/Queen can do no wrong, dontchaknow. (cf: Bush, GW, and his whole administration for recent
examples. History is filled with them, though.)
As for Hillary's obvious errors in judgment, I think they speak for themselves and they don't
speak well of her.
TINA vs WATA (we are the alternative) the next two years are gonna be interesting evil is often
a cover for total incompetence and exposure our little tsarina will insist brigades that dont
exist move against enemies that are hardly there when she & her useless minions were last in/on
the seat of power(j edger version of sop) the netizens of the world were young and dumb now not
so much
I got into wicked problems 35 years ago in the outstanding book by Ian Mitroff and R. O. Mason,
"Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions." First page of Chapter One has subsection title COMPLEXITY,
followed by "A Little Experiment" Lets try the experiment with current problems.
One could come up with a list of major problems, but here is the one used by C. West Churchman
mentioned along with Horst Riddle. Churchman back in the 80's said that the problems of the world
were M*P**3, or M, P cubed, or M * P * P *P with the letters standing for Militarism, Population,
Poverty and Pollution.
Here is how they ran the exercise
1. Suppose there were a solution to any of these 4 problems, would that solution be related
to the other problems. Clearly.
2. Thus 'whenever a policy maker attempts to solve a complex policy problem, it is related
to all the others
Repeated attempts in other contexts give the same result: basically, every real world
policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem
This is from page 4, the second page of the book.
I ran this exercise for several years in ATT Bell Labs and ATT.
List major problems
How long have they been around? (most for ever except marketing was new after breakup in
'84
If one was solved, would that solution be related in any way to the other ones?
Do you know of any program that is making headway? (occasionally Quality was brought up)
This could be done in a few minutes, often less than 5 minutes
5. Conclusion: long term interdependent problems that are not being addressed
Thus the only grade that matters in this course on Corporate Transformation that now begins
is that you have new insights on these problems. This was my quest as an internal consultant in
ATT to transform the company. I failed.
I was a Sanders supporter. Many here will disagree, but if Clinton wins I don't think she's
going to act as she might have acted in 2008, if she had won.
Clinton is a politician, and *all* politicians dissemble in private, unless they're the mayor
of a small town of about 50 people and even then! Politicians in doing their work *must*
compromise to some degree, with the best politicians compromising in ways that bring their constituents
more benefit, than not.
That said, Clinton is also a human being who is capable of change. This election cycle has
been an eye opener for both parties. If Clinton wins (and, I think she will), the memory of how
close it was with Sanders and the desperate anger and alienation she has experienced from Trump
supporters (and even Sanders' supporters) *must* have already gotten her thinking about what she
is going to have to get done to insure a 2020 win for Democrats, whether or not she is running
in 2020.
In sum, I think Clinton is open to change, and I don't believe that she is some deep state
evil incarnate; sge's *far* from perfect, and she's not "pure" in her positioning thank god!,
because in politics, purists rarely accomplish anything.
If Clinton reverts to prior form (assuming she makes (POTUS), 2020 will make 2016 look like
a cakewalk, for both parties including the appearance of serious 3rd party candidates with moxy,
smarts, and a phalanx of backers (unlike the current crop of two Johnson and Stein).
Groupinggate was essentially an attempt to distract votes from a more serious issue, especially
Hillary warmongering, her role in mass rape of women in Syria and Libya, and latest Podesta emails leaks.
This was a defensive strike with material that was specifically reserved for this purpose.
Notable quotes:
"... there are many more than two sides in Syria's civil war. First of all the civil war is not limited to Syria. ISIL, Hezbollah, and arguably Kurdish Rojava are belligerents not particularly invested in the borders of long defunct Mandate Syria. ..."
"... The rebel forces arrayed against or for Assad in any particular area are various in their motivations and political identities and they never divide neatly into two opposed camps. ..."
"... In short, you either support US violent regime change in the ME, or you do not. ..."
"... All who are voting for Hillary Clinton are voting for US violent regime change in Syria. That's been the stated policy of the Obama administration for some years, Hillary was played a key role in formulating that policy as Secretary of State. Now, as candidate for President she has explicitly promised more US violent regime change in Iraq. ..."
"... Violent regime change in Syria is the stated policy of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate most US members of the CT community plan to vote for in November. ..."
intervene in a civil war on the side of the rebels
I apologize if anyone feels I am harping on this too much, but there are many more than
two sides in Syria's civil war. First of all the civil war is not limited to Syria. ISIL, Hezbollah,
and arguably Kurdish Rojava are belligerents not particularly invested in the borders of long
defunct Mandate Syria.
The rebel forces arrayed against or for Assad in any particular area are various in their
motivations and political identities and they never divide neatly into two opposed camps.
kidneystones 10.15.16 at 8:06 am
@ 190 There aren't many times you're this wrong, Bruce. There are only two sides. The side that
holds a UN seat; votes or abstains on UN resolutions; borrows or does not borrow from the World
Bank; has the authority to sign, or abrogate international treaties along, for example, the Golan
heights and the forces not aligned with the government.
The CT community evidently wants to 'confuse itself' and the issues. You are either in favor
of the US using US military power to unilaterally intercede in a civil war against the Assad government,
which as you and Peter T note, is inextricably linked to Iraq and other regional disputes, or
you oppose the unilateral use of US military power to topple governments in the ME.
In short, you either support US violent regime change in the ME, or you do not.
All who are voting for Hillary Clinton are voting for US violent regime change in Syria.
That's been the stated policy of the Obama administration for some years, Hillary was played a
key role in formulating that policy as Secretary of State. Now, as candidate for President she
has explicitly promised more US violent regime change in Iraq.
Violent regime change in Syria is the stated policy of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic
candidate most US members of the CT community plan to vote for in November.
"... the danger that he presents is shaking the rats from under the carpet. ..."
"... Yet the NYT keeps reporting that American intelligence asserts (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks, and this is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election. ..."
"... I'm afraid, when it comes to end-of-the-Republic stuff, it's worse when your own intelligence guys are trying to manipulate the election than when their intelligence guys are. ..."
I'll begin with the necessary avowal that I think Trump is a clown, and dangerous, and I hope
he goes down to a record defeat.
But still the danger that he presents is shaking the rats from under the carpet.
How many times have I read that Russian intelligence is trying to manipulate the American election?
And that this is a Very Bad Thing?
Yet the NYT keeps reporting that American intelligence asserts (without providing evidence)
that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks, and this is nothing less that attempts
of American intelligence to manipulate the election.
And I'm afraid, when it comes to end-of-the-Republic stuff, it's worse when your own intelligence
guys are trying to manipulate the election than when their intelligence guys are.
"... "The drama was a commercial and critical success, surpassing ten million views by its second day,[4] and receiving a total number of daily internet views on iQiyi of over 3.3 billion by the end of the series.[5][6] Nirvana in Fire was considered a social media phenomenon, generating 3.55 billion posts on Sina Weibo that praised its characters and story-line." ..."
As you recall the French Exocet , a souped-up V1 in respects, has been "out there" a
long time.
. . . In the years after the Falklands War, it was revealed that the British government
and the Secret Intelligence Service had been extremely concerned at the time by the perceived
inadequacy of the Royal Navy's anti-missile defenses against the Exocet and its potential to
tip the naval war decisively in favor of the Argentine forces. A scenario was envisioned in
which one or both of the force's two aircraft carriers (Invincible and Hermes) were destroyed
or incapacitated by Exocet attacks, which would make recapturing the Falklands much more difficult.
Actions were taken to contain the Exocet threat. A major intelligence operation was also
initiated to prevent the Argentine Navy from acquiring more of the weapons on the international
market.[16]
The operation included British intelligence agents claiming to be arms dealers
able to supply large numbers of Exocets to Argentina, who diverted Argentina from pursuing
sources which could genuinely supply a few missiles. France denied deliveries of Exocet AM39s
purchased by Peru to avoid the possibility of Peru giving them to Argentina, because they knew
that payment would be made with a credit card from the Central Bank of Peru. British intelligence
had detected the guarantee was a deposit of two hundred million dollars from the Andean Lima
Bank, an owned subsidiary of the Banco Ambrosiano.[17][18] wiki
The French are major proliferisers of modern weapon systems. They and the Russians have put
a lot of weapons out there which are affordable for small States but have the potential even to
worry the biggest militaries.
Much of world history depends on the relative availability of defensive/offensive weaponry.
Back when the castle was the apex of military might any local thug with the money to build one
could become a lord and rule his little kingdom. Then when cannons became powerful enough to reduce
them to rubble empires came back into vogue. When battleships ruled the waves, this allowed the
great seagoing nations to dominate, but the invention of the torpedo along with submarines and
long range bombers levelled things up for smaller nations such as Japan. Then the aircraft carrier
swung things back to empires in the post war years. But now I think high speed sea skimming and
ballistic missiles along with long distance torpedoes have swung things back to 'weaker' nations.
Even the Houthi's in Yemen seem to have obtained missiles capable of knocking out an
ex-US combat vessel.
The democratization of missile technology is the big military story of the last three decades.
Look at, for instance, at how Hezbollah's Sheik Nasrullah kicked off the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
by striking an Israeli warship during a TV presentation. Very slick.
In fac, talking of the USS Stark, all those ships with their big aluminum superstructures will
burn down to their waterline when hit. The Emirates even recently banned aluminum in tower buildings
recently.
Aluminum's vulnerability didn't matter during the decades of the Cold War when if the Big One
started the surface navy wouldn't really do any fighting because it would all be up anyway, and
meanwhile smaller groups and nations - especially those with brown skins - didn't have access
to serious missile technology.
The big transition point came with the Falklands War when the UK's admirals smartly stood their
aircraft carriers beyond range till Margaret Thatcher phoned to Mitterand and intimated that the
British might use their Polaris submarine to nuke Buenos Aires unless Mitterand gave up the Exocet
codes. Think I'm kidding? Thatcher got the codes; they didn't call her Mad Maggie for nothing.
As for why they're still building surface warships with aluminum superstructures, it's military
Keynesianism and everybody would have to be submariners otherwise, which wouldn't be fun..
I think the Pentagon did an analysis under GW Bush about attacking Iran and buried the idea.
I believe this is why Iran made a big dash for surface-to-surface missiles to defend themselves,
and DID NOT have to go for nukes. If you've got anti-ship missiles, you can push those carriers
far enough out to sea which limits the ability to launch airstrikes.
Plus, with anti-ship missiles, you can put the Persian Gulf on total lockdown and watch the
Saudis suffocate. Iran has already been dealing with sanctions for years, so it's no sweat to
them!
If the USA ever has an aircraft carrier sunk, the unipolar moment is indisputably over.
I suspect that for the money put out the Chinese get a lot more defense. In fact, if they are
spending 200 billion and we are spending 600 billion we can be sure that they are close to parity.
Of course, we are spending a lot more than 600 billion when you add in VA, disability and retirement
costs as well as current war outlays. The entire defense industry in both China and the US is
obsolete given modern communications and immigration trends anyway. How are you going to bomb
Yemen when the excess population in Yemen ends up driving taxis in Washington D.C. or why bomb
Syria when all it does is encourage the Syrians to move to the west? What is the difference between
a Syrian or Afghan in Idaho or Berlin and one in Damascus or Kabul? The national state is becoming
obsolete and military action is powerless against demography.
The key paradox for the US military is that wars are won not by who has the greatest number
of tanks, ships or aircraft, but by the country that can put the greatest number of tanks, ships
and aircraft into the field of battle . The US has by far the biggest military in the
world, but it has also put itself in the position of needing a military a multiple of everyone
elses because of the sheer geographical spread of commitments. China's military is tiny and primitive
compared to the US, but in reality any war is likely to be geographically limited to (for example)
the South China Sea. China has every chance of being able to match the US in this kind of war.
As for China's blue sea commitments, I actually doubt they have any intention of really pursuing
a long range war capacity. The Chinese know their history and know that a military on this scale
can be economically ruinous. But there is a naval military concept known as
fleet in being , which
essentially means that even a theoretical threat can force an enemy to pour resources into trying
to neutralise it. China I think is using this concept continually setting off rumours of new
strike missiles, long range attack aircraft, new aircraft carriers, etc., to force the US (aided
and abetted by the defence industry) to spent countless billions on phantom threats. Some of these
rumours may be true many I suspect are simply deliberate mischief making by the Chinese, with
the serious aim of dissipating America's military strength.
A new theatre for that mischief and dissipation is Africa. My parish has a Nigerian priest.
When he's away, we usually get another Nigerian. At supper for the Bishop last Saturday, our priest,
an Ibo, and another, a Hausa from Kano, said that many, if not, most Nigerians think Boko Haram
is assisted by the US and, to a lesser extent, France as it gives the pair an excuse to maintain
troops in the region and keep their client state governments in line.
Whether or not its true, the fact that intelligent people think that way shows everything you
need to know about how US and Western soft power has been frittered away the past few years through
stupidity and cynicism.
Why bomb? Because then Uncle Sugar gets to take their stuff after they all leave their war
torn countries. If some of the refugees are pissed off and blow up some people in their new homelands,
why that's just a little collateral damage and when has the establishment ever cared about that?
It just gives them an excuse to surveil everyone.
What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?
The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.
The worst is atomic war.
The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the
wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or
the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this
earth.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final
sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it
is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
- that crazy commie madman, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1953 on military Keynesianism.
ClubOrlov argues that the difference in military spending between the U. S. and Russia is lessened
as our spending is bloated and misspent due to corruption.
The Russians are treating spending as a scarce natural resource. In the U. S. we spend as McCain
says like drunken sailors.
I'd be very sceptical that the Russian military somehow avoids the rampant corruption in other
parts of the Russian economy.
By necessity, the Russian military has always been parsimonious and has had to get more firepower
for its rouble than other wealthier countries. Much of their weaponry is very simple, effective
and robust, and Russian tactics are as good if not better than any other major military. However,
they've had their white elephants too their new
Yasen Class attack
submarines are far too expensive as an example, and poor quality control in manufacturing
has meant that many of their more advanced weapons have dubious real world utility. Their large
ships are generally a disaster, a complete waste of money (this is why they were buying assault
ships from France).
USA military power is just as great as it has ever been, if not greater. What's changed is
the traction it had in forcing alignment from partners who held very little cultural/common ground
with the USA.
Biggest factor in that loss of traction is that Russia (and to a lesser extent China) is not
exporting revolution anymore. Both China and Russia engage in real politic with limited military
power that makes them a far less threatening partner than the USA for any state that is willing
to transfer some of the wealth to them that the USA formerly extracted (and usually these new
players pay much better price with less interference). Even Vietnam, which has real historical
reasons to be Sinophobic, probably fears China less than it does a US Government which attempts
to subvert Vietnam's economy through currency dependency. How so Russia, which is no threat to
any of Vietnam's interests.
What constrains Russia's power isn't the military, but it's relatively minuscule consumer market.
Similarly, China's trade protectionism for semi-finished and finished goods has constrained it's
ability to project power to those nations, like Australia, Argentina & Russia, which subsist primarily
on raw material exports. China is in a better situation than Russia to change this situation and
expand it's power into Europe, though I doubt Xi is the man for it.
What's changed is the traction it had in forcing alignment from partners who held very little
cultural/common ground with the USA.
I'd claim that the alignment came not so much from US military might but rather from the US
offering better terms at least to "white countries"; plenty of brutal regime change and CIA
skulduggery was applied on brown folks, still is, in fact.
Now, it seems to the world that the US have become so bloated with it's own military and perceived
cultural/economic superiority that the US offers pretty much nothing in return to anyone, regardless
of the favors asked. Everyone are treated as colonies and vassals, except perhaps a few leaders
and decision makers (Or maybe it was always like that but now we got the Internet and we know).
This state of affairs pisses people off.
In addition, people are beginning to understand that what is applied to brown people abroad
today can happen to them also tomorrow. That in the US world order, everyone who is not an American
have no value compared to an American* and can be killed, tortured, disappeared with no consequences
what so ever. Because fuck Nόrenberg.
Therefore, everyone else being in some way enemies of the US merely by belonging to another
tribe than America, has realized that there is no good thing coming from aligning with America,
sooner or later the "military option" or "the regime change" will come out and we will be knifed
in the back. Those who can actively resist, those who have the option aligns with other powers,
those who cannot do this, will drag their feet and try to avoid direct confrontation, maybe something
will show up?
Stupid, weak, nations like Denmark and Sweden go all in with 110% effort on the fantasy that
they will be seen as good people with an American core, struggling to claw it's way out, from
inside their unworthy un-American bodies and therefore they will be protected at least for a
while*.
*)
Americans themselves are beginning to realize that anyone who isn't rich & covered in lawyers
can be fined, jailed or even killed right in the street by the police for basically nothing at
all. This is beginning to grate on their understanding of their place in the pecking order. But,
everyone still blame Whites, Latinos, Blacks, Feminists identity politics works, keeps the contraption
from falling off the road.
This also shows why the silly idea of escape by being super-American will not work: Americans
are treated like shit too.
Thank you. I like your point about "stupid, weak nations". French is my second language. English
is my third. I watch French TV news most days and visit the place regularly, business and pleasure,
and studied there. I am surprised, but may be should not be, at how American France has become
/ is becoming. Hollande and Sarko, who has American connections by way of his stepmother and half
brothers, have made the country a poodle in a way that de Gaulle and Chirac would not. Most French
people I know seem ok or indifferent to that. Part of that Americanisation seems to be the English
/ Americanised English forenames given to French children. I have observed that trend in (western)
Germany and even francophone communities well away from the French mainland.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best example of what being a loyal US "ally" entails:
corrupt local elites working against their country's own best interests lest they become a
target for a color revolution. Meanwhile their much-suffering subjects don't know which way
to turn to hide their collective embarrassment.
My files are bulging to the bursting point. The latest fiasco in Colonia Bulgaria was the election
of the new GenSec of the UN. Bulgaria had a leading candidate, until Merkel decided that she wanted
Germany to play an outsized role in the UN, and bring EU politics into the UN.
Disaster ensued:
So the initial Bulgarian candidate Bokova looked like the ideal choice. Here was a chance
for little old Bulgaria to shine on the world stage for the first time in over a millenium,
possibly since the Bulgars burst out of Central Asia on horseback. Add this to the background
context: it is unprecedented for a country to nominate a candidate officially, a front-runner
no less, and then do a public switcheroo before the world's eyes. But that's exactly what Bulgaria
did just a week ago. Bokova was dumped and Georgieva spooned up. Disaster ensued, as I predicted
it would in previous columns .
Bulgaria lost its once-in-a-millenium chance at shaping the world. As the record shows,
Gutteres won.
If Bulgaria were a normal healthy country, the Prime Minister would now resign and the government
would fall. Because, it was the Prime Minister's decision to switch candidates. He did so despite
knowing that two-thirds of Bulgarian citizens preferred his first candidate. Boyko Borissov
is his name, a deeply underachieving dull-witted schemer-survivor in the wooden tradition of
the region. A short-fingered Bulgarian if ever there was one. He first came to the fore as
the bodyguard of the last Bulgarian Communist leader. That should give you a clue to the man's
qualities. So why did Boyko 'switch horses'? Why did he do it?
Brutal, just brutal kick in the butt from the ally's MSM. And that's only one of many reactions.
Because even the bosses don't like grovelling toadies. They want to control them, but they will
never invite them for an afternoon tea. Particularly a marionette whose mafia ties the Congressional
Quarterly wrote about. Not that these organized crime ties are a disqualifier, if anything the
US likes that because it makes Borissov easy to control.
At least Merkel's scheming and Bulgaria's humiliation had an unexpected positive effect: Power
and Churkin managed to put on a BFF act in front of the cameras and allied to get Gutteres elected
as SecGen, while delivering a massive kick in Merkel's ample backside. Takes some doing to get
the US and Russia to not only see eye to eye on anything, but to also work in concert. Bravo!
PS This also proves a historical truth: doing Germany's bidding never ends well for Bulgaria.
Or for any other nation.
global scenario that the down-to-earth presidents of China and Russia seem to have in mind
resembles the sort of balance of power that existed in Europe.
The article floats away here. China and Russia might want to have something that "resembles"
that time, but the analogy overlooks the fact that the relatively calm state of affairs - Franco-Prussian
war? - on the European continent after Napoleon coexisted with savage colonial expansion. The
forms of superexploitation thereby obtained did much to help stabilize Europe, even as competition
for colonial lands became more and more destabilizing and were part of what led to WW1.
Now we're in a situation in which superexploitation options are largely gone. Routine profit
generation has become difficult due to global productive overcapacity, leading to behavioral sinkish
behavior like the US cannibalizing its public sector to feed capital. Since the late 19th century
US foreign policy has been organized around the open markets mantra. It may be possible for the
Chinese, with their greater options for economy manipulation, to avoid the crashes the US feared
from lack of market access. But the current situation on its face does not have anything like
the colonial escape valve available in the 19th century.
Of course,duplicitous political COPORATISM means systems over a systemic characterized by marked
or even intentional deception that is now sustained and even spearheaded by state systems. Many
contemporary liberal idealists living in urban strongholds of market mediated comfort zones will
not agree to assigning such strong description to an Obama administration. It is too distant and
remote to assign accountability to global international finance and currency wars that have hegemonic
hedge funds pumping and dumping crisis driven anarchy over global exploit (ruled by market capital
fright / fight and flight). To the extent that colonialism or neocolonialism does not actually
hold fixed boundary ground is irrelevant, since assets are more differential and flexible needing
only corporate law to sustain strict boundaries on possession or instruments that convert to the
same power over assets. No one, of course, wants to assess stocks and bonds as instruments of
global oppression or exploitation that far exceeds 19th century's crude colonial rule. Recall,
however, how "joint stock" corporations first opened chartered exploit at global levels under
East and West Trading power aggregates that were profit driven enter-prize. So in reality the
current cross border market system of neoliberal globalization is, in fact, a stealth colonialism
on steroids. TPP is part of that process in all its stealthy dimensions.
"The TPP is a corporate power grab, a 5,544-page document that was negotiated in secret by
big corporations while Congress, the public, and unions were locked out.
Multinationals like Google, Exxon, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, UPS, FedEx, Apple, and Walmart are
lobbying hard for it. Virtually every union in the U.S. opposes it. So do major environmental,
senior, health, and consumer organizations.
The TPP will mean fewer jobs and lower wages, higher prices for prescription drugs, the loss of
regulations that protect our drinking water and food supply, and the loss of Internet freedom.
It encourages privatization, undermines democracy, and will forbid many of the policies we need
to combat climate change."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/09/30/ttp-ttip-map-shows-
how-trade-deals-would-enable-polluter-power-grab
TTP & TTIP: Map Shows How Trade Deals Would Enable 'Polluter Power-Grab'
by Andrea Germanos
The new, interactive tool 'gives people a chance to see if toxic trade is in their own backyard'
From a long range view, 19th Century compitition using black and brown property and lives was
an improvement over battling face to face with neighbors. It was an expansion of tribal boundaries,
somewhat.
Now, few argue openly (except in presidential debates) against those boundaries encompassing brown
and black members of the human race. We engage our ruthlessness less openly in covert operations,
corporate predations and financial hegemony.
Even awful behavior can be seen as an advance.
This is very handy, thanks. However the conclusion stops short of what the SCO is saying and
doing. They have no interest in an old-time balance of power. They want rule of law, a very different
thing. Look at Putin's Syria strategy: he actually complies with the UN Charter's requirement
to pursue pacific dispute resolution. That's revolutionary. When CIA moles in Turkey shot that
Russian jet down, the outcome was not battles and state-sponsored terror, as CIA expected. The
outcome was support for Turkey's sovereignty and rapprochement. Now when CIA starts fires you
go to Russia to put them out.
While China maintains its purist line on the legal principle of non-interference, it is increasingly
vocal in urging the US to fulfill its human rights obligations. That will sound paradoxical because
of intense US vilification of Chinese authoritarianism, but when you push for your economic and
social rights here at home, China is in your corner. Here Russia is leading by example. They comply
with the Paris Principles for institutionalized human rights protection under independent international
oversight. The USA does not.
When the USA goes the way of the USSR, we'll be in good hands. The world will show us how developed
countries work.
"RULE OF LAW" up front and personal (again?)
Now why would the USA be worried about global rule of law?
An Interesting ideal. No country above the law.
" US President Barack Obama has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the families of the victims
of the September 11, 2001, attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia.
In a statement accompanying his veto message, Obama said on Friday he had
"deep sympathy" for the 9/11 victims' families and their desire to seek justice for
their relatives.
The president said, however, that the bill would be "detrimental to US national interests"
and could lead to lawsuits against the US or American officials for actions taken by groups armed,
trained or supported by the US.
"If any of these litigants were to win judgements based on foreign domestic laws as applied
by foreign courts they would begin to look to the assets of the US government held abroad to
satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States,"
Obama said."
-----------------------
To the tune of "Moma said " by The Shirelles
.Oh don't you know Obama said they be days like this,
..they would be days like this Obama said
One interesting irony is that in Obama's TPP "The worst part is an Investor-State Dispute Settlement
provision, which allows a multinational corporation to sue to override any U.S. law, policy, or
practice that it claims could limit its future profits."
(source:
http://labornotes.org/2016/09/october-all-hands-deck-stop-tpp
)
"Though the Obama administration touts the pact's labor and environmental protections, the official
Labor Advisory Committee on the TPP strongly opposes
it, arguing that these protections are largely unenforceable window dressing."
I think you're overstating the Russian military advantage in Syria and Ukraine, while ignoring
the real dysfunction in US foreign policy. Key policy thinkers at State and Defense still believe
that it's worth the time and effort for the US to project military influence in Syria. This is
a policy position entirely driven by Israel's existential concern over Iran. There are no substantial
US interests in Syria right now. We aren't actually fighting ISIS, because if we were, we would
be targeting the foreign funding coming from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As a consequence, if we simply
withdrew from Syria, Russia would be left propping up a regime that would be fighting an ongoing
insurgency against foreign jihadists.
In other words, it would be wasting its time and resources on a pointless fight to build a
state in the Middle East (sounds familiar). Russia is the one with a military base in Syria that
they need to protect. Let them waste the time and energy defending their military assets.
Instead, the US should be reducing its Middle East footprint and selectively engaging in key
diplomatic efforts. The Saudis and the Gulf States are committed to fighting it out with Iran
for Middle East influence. There's no reason for us to pick sides in this fight. Let them engage
in proxy wars without US military assistance and then, when the time is right, we can offer our
role as a neutral broker and negotiate terms that actually benefit our strategic interests.
The reason we can't play this role in the region is because we are so myopically focused on
policies that are pro-Israeli. Eliminate Israel's interests from the calculations, and our policies
would change dramatically.
Great article and comments. Surprised there has been no speculation here about what HRC will
do with the geopolitical hash created by neo-lib economics and neo-con foreign and military policies.
We know what Obama did (not) do with what was really a political mandate. Certainly he has been
constrained politically and, perhaps, personally ( shame what happened to those nice Kennedy boys,
they had so much "promise.") However, as has been ably pointed out in comments above, his actions
where he was not constrained are the flag in the wind. You don't have to be a weatherman .
Hillary, of course, has already shown her colors. There will be no Nobel based on promises
and high expectations. She will relentlessly pursue the PNAC programme and the "exceptional, essential
nation" fantasy, contra the analysis above. You can take the girl out of the Goldwater, but you
can't take the Goldman out of the girl.All that glitters ..
Fascinating thread, thanks.
I stream a lot of Korean dramas, and lately Chinese dramas have also been showing up in my video
feeds; it is clear that Taiwan and China are trying to access eyeballs globally, as a means to
gain soft power and revenue.
The earlier Chinese dramas seeking a global audience seemed shrill, melodramatic, and approximately
the production quality of the old static BBC costume dramas of the 1970s. I found them unwatchable.
However, China has recently put out something that is quite possibly a masterpiece of storytelling.
" Nirvana in Fire " [NiF] is an epic story of betrayal, treachery, loyalty, and trust,
with some incredible martial arts into the mix. NiF is described as the Chinese Game of Thrones
. (I am unable to make a good comparison, as I have not watched GoT). However, I'd argue
that NiF is every bit as good as the BBC's brilliant " The Tudors " (2007, with Jonathon
Rhys Meyers).
I take NiF as a sign that despite what sounds like a hideous housing bubble, China's cultural
endeavors are developing at a level that is as outstanding as anything that any nation can produce.
And in a world where the Internet seems to be morphing into a vast, global video distribution
service (woohoo!!), that is no small thing. Judging from social media stats, it appears to be
quite formidable.
This new Silk Road is often spoken of as physical, and I do not take it lightly; nevertheless,
the silkier threads are probably the telecom infrastructure carrying subtitled dramas to mobiles,
desktops, and smart TVs around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_In_Fire
From the wiki page: "The drama was a commercial and critical success, surpassing ten million
views by its second day,[4] and receiving a total number of daily internet views on iQiyi of over
3.3 billion by the end of the series.[5][6] Nirvana in Fire was considered a social media
phenomenon, generating 3.55 billion posts on Sina Weibo that praised its characters and
story-line."
I searched for 'Facebook posts on GoT' but could not get any results that I trusted enough to
include here. It's a fair guess, however, they did not amount to 3,550,000,000 comments. Whoever
gets to stream their dramas across Africa and S. America will develop a formidable 'soft power'
resource.
That series sounds very interesting, I must look for it.
I think the Chinese are quite serious about using film and TV as soft power, but they face
a paradox in that it is hard to promote quality drama while also indulging in heavy censorship.
The Chinese are very good at using carrots and sticks to 'tame' artists just look at how a formerly
great film maker like Zhang Yimou has gone from making beautiful and subtle allegories about Chinese
society to now just making big empty commercial epics which are little more than propaganda pieces.
I doubt Chinese film makers will ever have the freedom to make the sort of challenging work that
Korean film makers do all the time (Japanese film makers once did this too, but seem to have given
up). But they probably have enough talent to make plenty of entertaining fantasy TV and film,
but whether it will travel so well I'm not sure.
LOL, I watched that drama too, and I'd agree. Most Chinese dramas are unwatchable, but as NiF
showed, it's not because there are no capable series makers, etc, because there are plenty of
those in China. The problem is rather the producers for whatever reason think that local audiences
are only interested in melodramas and idols dressed in ridiculous costumes.
And please, NiF is better than GoT. I am a big fan of the books, and the TV series to me is
laughable.
I just find this difficult to believe that America's diplomatic power is in decline.
After all, is the great-grandson of what was once the top dope dealer on the planet, Francis
Blackwell Forbes, now the SecState (that would be John "Forbes, Winthrop, Dudley" Kerry)?
"... There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America. ..."
"... In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background? ..."
"... Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold. ..."
"... Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence. ..."
"... Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America. ..."
"... He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it. ..."
"... I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit. ..."
"... I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. ..."
"... The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions. ..."
"... Many view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. ..."
"... As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat. ..."
"... Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period. ..."
"... The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch). ..."
"... I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually. ..."
"... What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there. ..."
"... the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office. ..."
"... Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up. ..."
"... In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was. ..."
"... On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor. ..."
"... With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?" ..."
"... Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us. ..."
"... Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations. ..."
"... What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013. ..."
"... It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body. ..."
"... 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership." ..."
Not mentioned, of course, is that TPP etc., are central to the US's strategy to counter Russia
and China, and it seems these Pacts are on the verge of failing miserably.
There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar
and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers
off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more
of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America.
Also, militarily its worth pointing out that Russia and China etc., do not have to match the
US's fleets to gain equality on the oceans. They just have to have the technology for areal denial
i.e. sufficient long range missiles to make the US reluctant to send aircraft carriers within
striking distance. This is similar to the early 20th Century situation where relatively cheap
submarines allowed weaker countries to prevent the traditional great Naval Powers from having
things their own way. Although in its own way, this proved very destabilising.
The other factor not mentioned is that the the neocons have squandered the US's greatest single
strength its 'soft' power. The US is simply not respected and liked around the world the way
it was even in the Cold War. I think the hysteria around Obama's election was at least partly
based around the worlds longing for a US they could like. Among other things, Obama squandered
that and left everyone with a choice between two detestable individuals, both of which are sure
to make things worse.
Thank you. Well said. Area denial is also cheaper and, probably, less corrupt.
That is such a good point about the soft power squandered by Obama. I wonder if that will come
to be seen as a failure on the scale that Kennan thought about Slick Willie's reversal of policy
towards Russia.
A question for readers based in the US. I am the child of immigrants who came to the UK from
a colony mentioned by Hiro in the mid-1960s, although we have ancestors who left these islands
for that francophone colony in the early 19th century. Most, but not all immigrants in the UK
and their children take tales of British superiority (vide why the UK will make Brexit a success)
with a bucket of salt.
Do our US peers do that? Obama seems like these British ministers of immigrant stock who need
to prove that they belong and so adopt these positions that others / natives rarely bother with
or express. In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone
I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background?
On another note, thank you (to PK) for the anecdote about RC churchgoers. I was away on Monday
evening and unable to say so.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue this with regard to foreign policy where (unlike
domestic policy) the president has a much freer hand.
Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced
him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the
Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody
forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and
turn it into an Isis stronghold.
Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence.
Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable
blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting
rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive
democratic governments in South and Central America.
He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he
sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it.
I agree that he has demonstrated a neoliberal-lite ideology, although its a little complicated
by the fact that he has several times seemed to have shown that he 'gets' that current policy
is wrong headed, but he has consistently shown little or no indication to stand up to the hard
liners within the administration. I don't believe he has any foreign policy ideology other than
his famous 'don't do stupid' policy, and as such will always go with establishment groupthink.
I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change!
Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins
bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.
I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population
believe there would be change. 10 years ago most of the population probably did not even
know the word neolib existed. And most of the population thought helocs were God's gift to the
USA.
The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine
a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions.
The us was based on a frontier mentality yet liberals think one Neolib president who spoke
of change could change course.
It's going to take a few presidents because society determines individuals' roles. When someone
is very different, society might accept one eccentric touch but not multiple all at once.
For example, maybe the us needs to go single payer but the golf from private to nationalized
is so vast that you can only get there by iteration unless there is a huge shock that permits
the leaders to do it in one scoop.
Many view Obama as a type of
Manchurian candidate
, sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. Combine that with a deep
distrust by much of the populace, to the extent that they pay attention , of the media, as the
latter as a group have largely demonstrated a profound disregard for truth and objectivity.
Politicians at least swear an oath upon taking office, even if many immediately ignore it,
while so-called journalists no longer attempt to self-police or maintain integrity. The media
seem to want to act as unelected officials with a seat at the top table.
As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between
overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive
stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat.
good guy / bad guy writ large. It can be argued that he has used the same role play domestically
where most of his constitutional prejudices have been corporate and most of his financial policies
equally republican.
See:
Obama Resists Hawks As U.S., Russia Step Up War Threats Over Syria
"Nobody forced Obama " is a formidable listing while apologists are generally sympathetic to
his charm and graceful very likeable personality.
In fact, (after all is said and done) Obama (as world leaders go) may well go down in history
as even a great president and world shaker where amoral realism is counted after all the smoke
and mirrors clear.
History is written by the victor as Napoleon stated succinctly. I suggest to you that his "legacy"
that is currently being groomed so carefully, includes some items that researchers and historians
will also have to explain more comprehensively than any cult of personality will cover.:
see: https://www.stpete4peace.org/obama-fact-sheet
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
PK wrote: 'he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be
a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email,
knocking him off the summit.'
Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic
expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama
was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the
2006-2008 period.
The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of
Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage
securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall
any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue
the apparent Change!Hope! pitch).
I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually.
What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents,
which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and
beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush
in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize,
in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by
those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway.
One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has
now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there.
the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is
a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while
in office.
maybe cause he talked a lot about change? you know, closing guantanamo, appointing liberals
to the bench, prosecuting war criminals and financial criminals, stuff like that. not starting
any more wars in the middle east. more will come to me if i think about it. oh yeah, marching
with striking union workers. trying to get the public option. taking a hard look at the fisa court.
sorry, running out of time here.
Of course it was doable. You are apparently overlooking the fact that for the first 2 years
of the Obama presidency he pretty much had a free hand. Both houses of Congress were in the hands
of democrats. Only later did the excuse of Republican vitriol have any weight. And lest you forget,
the voters weighed Obama in the 2010 mid-terms and found him lacking. Most analysts point to the
Democrat losses in that election as a result of Obama's failure to carry out his promised agenda.
In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if
Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was.
On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll
see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor.
With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But
supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid
stuff?"
It's really about acting like Hillary's idea of Lincoln. Obama had the nation behind him and
Congress, the Bully Pulpit mentioned below, the power to appoint and request the resignations
of the leaders of the Executive Branch arms of power, he could have lobbied for changing Rule
22 in the Senate his first year and changed the Senate rules for filibuster, and if Congress sends
him a bill he doesn't like he can NOT sign it, and if there is a bill he does like he can actually
get behind that bill and twist a few Congressional arms to get what he wants.
Obama can and has
accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised
to his other supporters - not us.
This is the very purpose of the bully pulpit presented to Obama in '08. Obama has always
been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations.
What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended
candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number
is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013.
It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes
in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body.
The results are clear, most regular everyday Euros are quite cynical about the US. 0bama
surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed
allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership."
Looks like Obama in working overclock to ensure the election of Trump ... anti-Russian hysteria
might have results different that he expects. Whether we are to have a world of sovereign nation-states
or one in which a single imperial superpower contends with increasingly fragmentary post-national and
sub-national threats around the globe will depend on the decisions that are made in the near future:
in the next few years.
Greenwald's astute observations were presumably made in response to Secretary of State John Kerry's
recent remarks that both
Russia and Syria should face war crimes investigations for their recent attacks on Syrian civilians.
"Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting
hospitals, and medical facilities, and women and children," Mr. Kerry said in Washington,
where he spoke alongside French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, as reported by the Independent
.
Unsurprisingly, Russia responded by urging caution regarding allegations of war crimes considering
the United States has been waging wars in a number of countries since the end of World War II. It
has picked up a number of allegations of war crimes in the process.
Kerry's
continuous accusations that Russia bombed hospital infrastructure are particularly hypocritical
in light of the fact the United States has bombed hospitals in
Iraq
and
Afghanistan on more than one occasion over past decade.
Further, former congressman Ron Paul's Institute for Peace and Prosperity hit back at Kerry, accusing
him of completely fabricating the most recent alleged hospital attack. As the Institute
noted :
" In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault
about a new UN resolution,
he said
( vid @1:00) about
Syria:
"'Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people
were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they
keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women. These are acts that beg
for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be
held accountable for these actions.'
" No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press
agency has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably
notes every claimed casualty and is frequently cited in 'western media,' has not said anything
about such an event anywhere in Syria. "
However, the most disturbing aspect of Kerry's allegation is that the accusations against
Russia run in tandem with Saudi Arabia's brutal assault on Yemen. Saudi Arabia, with the
aid of a few regional players - and with
ongoing American and British assistance (not to mention
billion dollar arms sales ) - has been bombing Yemen back into the Stone Age without any legal
basis whatsoever. Often, the Saudi-led coalition has completely decimated civilian infrastructure,
which has led a number of groups to accuse the coalition of
committing war crimes in the process.
Civilians and civilian infrastructure have been struck so routinely that the world has
become increasingly concerned the actual targets of the coalition strikes are civilians
(what could be a greater recruitment tool for al-Qaeda and ISIS in Yemen?) As
noted by Foreign Policy :
"The Houthis and their allies - armed groups loyal to Saleh - are the declared targets of the
coalition's 1-year-old air campaign. In reality, however, it is the civilians, such as Basrallah
and Rubaid, and their children, who are predominantly the victims of this protracted war. Hundreds
of civilians have been killed in airstrikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their
daily activities, or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict. The United
States, Britain, and others, meanwhile, have continued to supply a steady stream of weaponry and
logistical support to Saudi Arabia and its coalition."
Just take one example of the cruel and disproportionate use of force that Saudi Arabia has used
in Yemen (using American-made and supplied aircraft and weapons) - against Judge Yahya Rubaid and
his family. As Foreign Policy
reported in March of this year:
"According to family members, Rubaid was a judge on a case against Yemeni President Abed Rabbo
Mansour Hadi, for treason in absentia. It is unclear whether his house was attacked for this reason.
What is clear, however, is that there was no legally valid basis for bombing his home, as he and
his family were civilians and under international law should not have been deliberately targeted."
At the time this article's publication,
over 140 Yemenis had
been killed and another 500 injured in a Saudi-coalition aerial attack on a funeral over the
weekend. The civilian death toll continues to rise in Yemen, completely unchallenged by any major
players at the U.N.
When the U.N. does attempt to quell Saudi actions , the Saudis threaten
severe
economic retaliation.
How Kerry can accuse Russia of committing war crimes in Syria with a straight face is unclear,
as reports of atrocious crimes committed in Yemen continue to surface.
This is not to say Russia and Syria should not be investigated for war crimes but maybe, just
maybe, we could live in a world where everyone responsible for committing these gross acts could
be held accountable, instead of just those who
pose an economic
threat to the West . Mango327
38BWD22
Oct 11, 2016 3:47 PM
Madeline Albright, "Yes, I think the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 years
old by US sanctions, was a good price that had to be paid so we could get to Sadam Hussein "???
This bitch along with Kissinger, Soros, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and all the news organizations
who have been cheerleaders for the slaughter of innocents should all be charged with Crimes against
humanity and SHOT!
"Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- John Kerry, 197x
That was the supposed anti-war Kerry speaking of the Vietnam War, who rode
such comments into a congressional seat. We didn't know then that he was Skull and Bones or what
it might mean. Now we know it in spades.
Now it's clear he's just a lying sack of war mongering, deep state shit.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe
it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie."
Goebbels used "Gas Lighting" as a form of Psychological manipulation on a population on a mass
scale. Operation Mocking Bird. It continues on today. 365 days a year, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week.
The Psyche Warefare / PsyOp War does not clos
There is an assumption that Russia would never go to war with the US over the Syrian dispute.
But yet, Russia is preparing for war. It has both first-strike and counter-strike capability in
the event the west (US State Dept.) continues with its bullying tactics and further escalates
its hostility. Russia is a sovereign nation; it has both the right and the power to do what is
in the best interests of its citizenry and its allies (Assad).
The US used to be that way until it was over-run in a silent, but effective liberal-coup that
has taken full control and stupidly re-newed the cold war with Russia.
And now America has been left more vulnerable that it ever has been. A simple shut-down of
the electric grid for several months, will, by itself, cut the population in half.
Ultra-liberalism is ultra self-destructive... we're about to see just how destructive that
really is.
Well this is a refreshing start, but only a start. Russia certainly had nothing to do with the
gunships that bombed the hospitals in Afghanistan into powder, killing patients including children,
doctors, nurses and other personell.
I for one would like to know who it was who flew those
planes and have them explain to all of us why they did not refuse orders? What sort of morals
have Americans got to behave ths way? The hospitals bombed in Syria, ditto. The Saudis are the
beasts they are and somebody needs to bomb them into oblivion. (Perhaps take out some other smug
financial centers too!) But Yemen is a very poor sandy country to begin with and Saudi must think
there's oil or something there. If some of the weapons used there weren't tactical nukes they
sure looked like them. Gee. Wonder where they got them?
Chomsky's been saying it for decades, "If they do it, they're terrorists; if we do it,
we're freedom fighters."
My take is that if you are the head of a government, you are a psychopath and any categorization
beyond this is moot.
Clinton / Trump, Obama / Putin, Assad / Erdogan, UN / Nationalism, whoever it may be, they're
all playing the same game, and we're not even allowed to watch, much less comment.
The only thing trickling-down (through a historical perspective) should be blood.
"... If nothing else, the I'm-with-her whole hog approach of the media to this election should put the lie to the notion that we have anything resembling a functioning press. ..."
"... Additionally, the blind adherence by the press to Hillary's spin that Trump would put her in jail amounts to a dictatorship ignores the fact that previous to that statement Trump had said he would push for a special prosecutor. IOW, a completely legalized, judicially approved criminal investigation. ..."
"... I agree about the press becoming so bought over by Hillary. Watched some speech Trump was giving a month or so ago and he talked about Iraq as I recall and the press totally spun it into some different meaning altogether. Funny thing was the next day Trump was giving another speech which I also happened to see and made mention of what he said the day before and what the press turned his comment into from that point on I became very leery of believing anything they tell me. I too was amazed that almost immediately last night the press began reporting that Trump was talking to a dictatorship by saying he wanted her in jail when in fact that was completely taken out of context as well (as you mentioned above). ..."
"... I think the press has become very scary with all the power it has to twist the truth or what has been said as easily and quickly as they do. They must be very frightened by Trump. ..."
Why is the electorate seemingly more concerned with someone who is antagonistic towards certain
women than someone whose policies are antagonistic to whole nations and regions. Why aren't the
Wikileaks email revelations getting more traction or generating more outrage?
True. BigMedia is barely covering the Wikileaks story. My summary is that HClinton has a fake
"public position" & a genuine private position, that is pro-Grand Ripoff SS & MC cuts, & pro-TPP.
It should be a huge story, in that it calls as questionable any of HClinton's stated policies,
& given that Sanders repeatedly made the Wall $treet transcripts a major issue in the Primaries.
It takes a USian with intellectual curiosity, some free time, & enough critical thinking to
go to one of the few internet sources like nakedcapitalism or SecularTalk that actually will cover
the Wikileaks story honestly. IMHO sadly this is a small minority of the US eligible voter population.
BTW for Sanders to maintain my respect, he needs to "make news" in BigMedia by saying something
like "my support of HClinton is contingent on her 'public position' the approves the 2016 D party
platform, which is anti-TPP & anti-SS & MC cuts. If HClinton is elected & signs the TPP or SS/MC
cuts, she will be strongly primary challenged in 2020, & I will not support her if the Rs ever
impeach her"
If nothing else, the I'm-with-her whole hog approach of the media to this election should
put the lie to the notion that we have anything resembling a functioning press.
Just one exampleI listened to some Clinton operative on msnbc radio today who was giving his
weaselly spin on Hillary's private position v. public position statement and who said that it
was only a few sentences out of an entire speech and needed to be viewed in context. Chuck Todd,
I think it was, never made note of the fact that there is no context to those statements since
the speeches have not and will not be released. There is no available context and Chuck just muttered
uh huh and let it pass.
Additionally, the blind adherence by the press to Hillary's spin that Trump would put her
in jail amounts to a dictatorship ignores the fact that previous to that statement Trump had said
he would push for a special prosecutor. IOW, a completely legalized, judicially approved criminal
investigation.
I agree about the press becoming so bought over by Hillary. Watched some speech Trump was
giving a month or so ago and he talked about Iraq as I recall and the press totally spun it into
some different meaning altogether. Funny thing was the next day Trump was giving another speech
which I also happened to see and made mention of what he said the day before and what the press
turned his comment into from that point on I became very leery of believing anything they tell
me. I too was amazed that almost immediately last night the press began reporting that Trump was
talking to a dictatorship by saying he wanted her in jail when in fact that was completely taken
out of context as well (as you mentioned above).
I think the press has become very scary with all the power it has to twist the truth or
what has been said as easily and quickly as they do. They must be very frightened by Trump.
[Oct 09, 2016] Imperial Collapse Watch October 201
That was all about debt slavery and a successful attempt to encircle Russia with a belt of hostile
state. Standard of living dropped more then twice since Maydan. Nationalist proved to be reliable neoliberal
tools who can fooled again and again based on their hate of Russia and help to enslave their own people
("fool me once"...) Classic divide and conquer. Nothing new. Yatsenyuk was despicable corrupt neoliberal
with fake flair of nationalism from the very beginning. he helped to sell country assets for pennies
on the a dollar and completely destroyed economic relations with Russia (why you need to love the county
to trade with it is beyond any sane person comprehension; capitalism is actually about the ability to
trade with people we hate and that's one of its strong points). Emigrant community in Canada and USA
(due to typical for emigrants heightened level of nationalism) also played a role in destruction of
economics of Ukraine. this is a very sad story of creating an African country in Europe where many people
live of less then a dollar a day and pensioners starve.
Ukraine has faded from the American national consciousness as other, even more recent and far
more spectacular foreign policy fiascos - Syria, Libya and the Islamic State - overwhelm our capacity
to catalog them.
... ... ...
Obama's delicate carrot-and-stick approach hasn't worked, and the long-simmering Ukrainian kettle
threatens to boil into the worst crisis in relations between Moscow and Washington since the Cold
War.
... ... ...
The optimism created by the 2013-2014 "EuroMaidan" street demonstrations was short-lived. Prime
Minister Arseniy Petrovych Yatsenyuk was forced to resign in April against a backdrop of permanent
political crisis and high-profile charges of corruption.
... ... ...
Perhaps most dispiriting of all, even those Ukrainian activists, politicians, and journalists
who are portrayed as true reformers appear likewise unable to resist the temptation to engage in
the systemic looting of the Ukrainian economy.
In early September, the New Yorker magazine dedicated several thousand words to three citizen-journalists
who now serve in the Ukrainian Parliament. Like other western media outlets, the New Yorker portrayed
Sergei Leshchenko, Svitlana Zalishchuk, and Mustafa Nayem as dedicated journalists - new faces who
sought election to parliament as part of President Poroshenko's bloc in the wake of the Maidan street
protests, which Nayem helped organize.
Now, however, Leshchenko's post-election acquisition of high-end housing has attracted the attention
of the Anti-Corruption Agency of Ukraine, an investigatory body that was established at the urging
of the United States. Last week, the Anti-Corruption Agency forwarded the Leshchenko file to the
special prosecutor's office tasked with corruption fighting. Leshchenko could not explain the source
of the income that allowed him to buy the residence, loan documents are missing, and the purchase
price was allegedly below market
The owner of the building, according to Ukrainian media accounts, is Ivan Fursin, the partner
of mega-oligarch Dmytro Firtash.
Recent reports have revealed that Leshchenko's expenses for attending international forums were
paid for by the oligarch Viktor Pinchuk who also contributed $8,6 million to the Clinton Foundation
While Leshchenko remains the toast of the western media and Washington think tanks, back at home,
his fellow reformers in the Parliament are calling on him to resign until his name is cleared.
Meanwhile, the next president is sure to find Ukraine besieged on all sides: With Russian troops
and pro-Russian rebels at its throat and corruption destroying it from within -and as the Leshchenko
scandal suggests, not all in Ukraine is what it appears to be.
The new president must learn to discern Ukraine's true reformers from those who made anti-corruption
crusades into a lucrative business, and be able to distinguish real action from empty words.
If not, the two and a half decades-long Ukrainian experiment with independence may boil over completely.
[Oct 09, 2016] Imperial Collapse Watch October 201
"... It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos. ..."
"... Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons. Not only America deserves it the world does. ..."
It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working
to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade
that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable
in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count
the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's
nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos.
Neither Trump nor Hillary addressed this
issue. Trump was simply ignorant. Hillary was simply disingenuous. Which candidate was worse? When you're talking about nuclear genocidal
death, it surely does matter. Ignorance is not bliss, nor is a lack of forthrightness and honesty.
Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons.
Not only America deserves it the world does.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views. He can be reached at
[email protected]. Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition
it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for
"nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears
the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.
The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no
intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again e.g., in Yugoslavia,
Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively
the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.
In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition
it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for
"nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears
the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.
The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no
intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again e.g., in Yugoslavia,
Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively
the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.
"... For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it. ..."
"... Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?" ..."
"... This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery. ..."
"... Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media. ..."
"... Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus. ..."
"... Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her. ..."
"... The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other is not is ludicrous. ..."
Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history
of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason
why.
For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression.
They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get
the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed
workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey
and sold it.
This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies
have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular
electricity may soon be restored. The militants' hold on the city could be ending.
Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian
and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods
of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based
analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only
force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only
system that is fighting ISIS?"
This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is
reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been
a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.
Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to
fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed
to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds,
and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but
Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information
about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this
lies with our media.
Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks
have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world
now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend
on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State
Department, the White House, and think tank "experts." After a spin on that soiled carousel, they
feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that
passes for news about Syria.
Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans,
seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters
are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness
of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting
from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.
Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra,
is made up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia
is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for
years been running a "rat line" for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but
because the United States wants to stay on Turkey's good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we
often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants
to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing,
simply because it is they who are doing it - and because that is the official line in Washington.
Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the
recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were
based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In
2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to
kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power,
at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.
Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused
for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to
remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.
Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries.
If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance
is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations.
It can do so with popular support because many Americans - and many journalists - are content with
the official story. In Syria, it is: "Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi,
and Kurdish friends to support peace!" This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely
to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown
University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.
kaisy 02/18/16 03:38 PM
The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the
elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other
is not is ludicrous.
When the uprising against Assad began three years ago, initially we were on the side of the
angels, that is until we found out that they were mostly Al Queda. Fast forward and now we
have ISIS, the sworn enemy of the US and anybody else that disagrees with them. So now,
remarkably, some are looking at Assad as the voice of moderation. This is so akin to
Afghanistan and, decades ago, Vietnam. When you don't understand the players and their
ulterior motives, best to not get involved. Me, I'd leave this to the Saudis and Iran to fight
over. Cruz talks about carpet bombing Syria until the sand glows (btw, real Christianlike
there). I say defer to those over there. Eventually they'll run out of people to do the
fighting (happening already with ISIS), then, and only then, we can go in and pick up the
pieces.
jkupie02/19/16 07:16 AM
"Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made
up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise."
I don't know enough about the area to confirm or disprove most of Mr. Kinzer's points but I
DO KNOW that this claim is false.
tyfox"n" 02/19/16 07:40 PM
jkupiue I absolutley agree. I have never read or heard al-Nusra described as anything but
an al-Qaeda group, and it is stated every time al-Nusra is mentioned.
pegnva 02/19/16 07:58 AM
Hard to know the truth...but it is interesting Kinzer was able to QUOTE former Sec'ty of
State, now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the recent Milwaukee debate for falsely
taking credit, some might say lying to the Am public.
kaisy 02/19/16 11:24 AM
Hillary is on the wrong side of this. She wants a no fly zone in Syria, just the Repubs.
She doesn't speak to the consequences of the policy. Unfortunately Bernie has not challenged
her on this. He really needs to.
NH-Repub 02/19/16 09:22 AM
Leftout is right and Hillary is the Queen of Doublespeak. Obama and his minions would like
nothing better than to mislead the masses and keep them in the dark about everything. That way
they control the media and by proxy - us!
Small countries are just pawns in a bigger Washington geopolitical game, the game conducted with
the level of determination and cruelty that would bestow on them an approving nod from Mussolini. And
actually they do not shun allies in far right forces. As long as they promote pro-American pro-neoliberalism
policies. As in saying "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch
" (attributed to FDR about Somoza). Since the dissolution of the USSR the US has been the world
hegemon, sponsoring a world order on neoliberal principles and making the world safe for an often
rapacious multinationals. Political disinterest in foreign military adventures at home due to absence
of draft allowed hijacking the US military for racketeering abroad. The privatizing of the military-industrial
complex has converted it into formidable political force: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates
perpetual war as a marketing tool. American foreign policy has long been the special province of transnational
corporations, which were allowed to use US naval and military power for penetration into markets of
the countries without paying for it.
Notable quotes:
"... With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats. ..."
"... Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a clichι much favored in Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table." ..."
"... Hillary Clinton chose a different course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better. ..."
"... What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she evidently actually has about nuclear issues. ..."
"... It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing audiences to nod-or nod off. ..."
"... With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home." ..."
"... In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016. ..."
"... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
"... Trump was incredibly naοve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term "first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition of any premises essential to the question. ..."
"... I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer. ..."
"... Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation. ..."
"... Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives. But this is what a leader is elected to do to use power and coercion to protect the people. He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian control of speech. ..."
"... So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort. ..."
"... So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil". ..."
"... The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-ill. ..."
You may have missed it. Perhaps you dozed off. Or wandered into the kitchen to grab a snack. Or by
that point in the proceedings were checking out Seinfeld reruns. During the latter part
of the much hyped but excruciating-to-watch first presidential debate, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester
Holt posed a seemingly straightforward but cunningly devised question. His purpose was to test whether
the candidates understood the essentials of nuclear strategy.
A moderator given to plain speaking might have said this: "Explain why the United States keeps
such a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and when you might consider using those weapons."
What Holt actually said was: "On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing
the nation's longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy?"
The framing of the question posited no small amount of knowledge on the part of the two candidates.
Specifically, it assumed that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each possess some familiarity with
the longstanding policy to which Holt referred and with the modifications that Obama had contemplated
making to it.
If you will permit the equivalent of a commercial break as this piece begins, let me explain why
I'm about to parse in detail each candidate's actual answer to Holt's question. Amid deep dives into,
and expansive punditry regarding, issues like
how "fat" a former Miss Universe may have been and
how high an imagined future wall on our southern border might prove to be, national security
issues likely to test the judgment of a commander-in-chief have received remarkably little attention.
So indulge me. This largely ignored moment in last week's presidential debate is worth examining.
With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed
to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend
itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats.
In other words, as a matter of policy, the United States rejects the concept of "no
first use," which would prohibit any employment of nuclear weapons except in retaliation for a nuclear
attack. According to press reports, President Obama had
toyed with but then rejected the idea of committing the United States to a "no first use" posture.
Holt wanted to know where the two candidates aspiring to succeed Obama stood on the matter.
Cruelly, the moderator invited Trump to respond first. The look in the Republican nominee's eyes
made it instantly clear that Holt could have been speaking Farsi for all he understood. A lesser
candidate might then have begun with the nuclear equivalent of "
What is Aleppo? "
Yet Trump being Trump, he gamely-or naively-charged headlong into the ambush that Holt had carefully
laid, using his allotted two minutes to offer his insights into how as president he would address
the nuclear conundrum that previous presidents had done so much to create. The result owed less to
early Cold War thinkers-of-the-unthinkable like Herman Kahn or Albert Wohlstetter, who created the
field of nuclear strategy, than to Dr. Strangelove. Make that Dr. Strangelove on meth.
Trump turned first to Russia, expressing concern that it might be gaining an edge in doomsday
weaponry. "They have a much newer capability than we do," he said. "We have not been updating from
the new standpoint." The American bomber fleet in particular, he added, needs modernization. Presumably
referring to the recent employment of Vietnam-era bombers in the wars in
Afghanistan ,
Iraq , and Syria, he continued somewhat opaquely, "I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s,
they're old enough that your father, your grandfather, could be flying them. We are not - we are
not keeping up with other countries."
Trump then professed an appreciation for the awfulness of nuclear weaponry. "I would like everybody
to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear
alternative happens, it's over."
Give Trump this much: even in a field that tends to favor abstraction and obfuscating euphemisms
like "fallout" or "dirty bomb," classifying Armageddon as the "nuclear alternative" represents something
of a contribution.
Still, it's worth noting that, in the arcane theology of nuclear strategy, "first strike" and
"first use" are anything but synonymous. "First strike" implies a one-sided, preventive war of annihilation.
The logic of a first strike, such as it is, is based on the calculation that a surprise nuclear attack
could inflict the "nuclear alternative" on your adversary, while sparing your own side from suffering
a comparable fate. A successful first strike would be a one-punch knockout, delivered while your
opponent still sits in his corner of the ring.
Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not
the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked
his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a clichι
much favored in
Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table."
Piling non sequitur upon non sequitur, he next turned to the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North
Korea, where "we're doing nothing." Yet, worrisome as this threat might be, keeping Pyongyang in
check, he added, ought to be Beijing's job. "China should solve that problem for us," he insisted.
"China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea."
If China wouldn't help with North Korea, however, what could be more obvious than that Iran, many
thousands of miles away, should do so-and might have, if only President Obama had incorporated the
necessary proviso into the Iran nuclear deal. "Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran
has power over North Korea." When the Obama administration "made that horrible deal with Iran, they
should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea." But why stop with
North Korea? Iran "should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places,"
he continued, wandering into the nonnuclear world. U.S. negotiators suitably skilled in the Trumpian
art of the deal, he implied, could easily have maneuvered Iran into solving such problems on Washington's
behalf.
Veering further off course, Trump then took a passing swipe at Secretary of State John Kerry:
"Why didn't you add other things into the deal?" Why, in "one of the great giveaways of all time,"
did the Obama administration fork over
$400 million in cash? At which point, he promptly threw in another figure without the slightest
explanation-"It was actually
$1.7 billion in cash"-in "one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history."
Trump then wrapped up his meandering tour d'horizonby decrying the one
action of the Obama administration that arguably has reduced the prospect of nuclear war, at least
in the near future. "The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems," he stated with conviction.
"All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don't have to do much. And they're going to end
up getting nuclear." For proof, he concluded, talk to the Israelis. "I met with Bibi Netanyahu the
other day," he added for no reason in particular. "Believe me, he's not a happy camper."
On this indecipherable note, his allotted time exhausted, Trump's recitation ended. In its way,
it had been a Joycean performance.
Bridge Over Troubled Waters?
It was now Clinton's turn to show her stuff. If Trump had responded to Holt like a voluble golf
caddy being asked to discuss the finer points of ice hockey, Hillary Clinton chose a different
course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was
in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better.
What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone
of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile
of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she
evidently actually has about nuclear issues.
"[L]et me start by saying, words matter," she began. "Words matter when you run for president.
And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South
Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them."
It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks
to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to
history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play
well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing
audiences to nod-or nod off.
"It is essential that America's word be good," Clinton continued. "And so I know that this campaign
has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I've talked
with a number of them. But I want to - on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of
the American people, say that, you know, our word is good."
Then, after inserting a tepid, better-than-nothing endorsement of the Iran nuclear deal, she hammered
Trump for not offering an alternative. "Would he have started a war? Would he have bombed Iran?"
If you're going to criticize, she pointed out, you need to offer something better. Trump never does,
she charged. "It's like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it's a secret plan, but the only secret
is that he has no plan."
With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about
these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get
hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and
in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country
that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further
peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home."
Like Trump, she offered no specifics. Which bullies? Where? How? In what order? Would she start
with Russia's Putin? North Korea's Kim Jong-Un? Perhaps Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines? How about
Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan? Or Bibi?
In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one
another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern
the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding
in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016.
Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet
sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into
it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of
posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary
Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.
The National Security Void
If I've taxed your patience by recounting this non-debate and non-discussion of nuclear first
use, it's to make a larger point. The absence of relevant information elicited by Lester Holt's excellent
question speaks directly to what has become a central flaw in this entire presidential campaign:
the dearth of attention given to matters basic to U.S. national security policy.
In the nuclear arena, the issue of first use is only one of several on which anyone aspiring to
become the next commander-in-chief should be able to offer an informed judgment. Others include questions
such as these:
What is the present-day justification for maintaining the U.S. nuclear "triad," a strike force
consisting of manned bombers and land-based ballistic missiles and submarine-launched
ballistic missiles?
Why is the Pentagon embarking upon a decades-long,
trillion-dollar program to modernize that triad, fielding a new generation of bombers, missiles,
and submarines along with an arsenal of
new warheads ? Is that program necessary?
How do advances in non-nuclear weaponry-for example, in the realm of cyberwarfare-affect theories
of nuclear deterrence devised by the likes of Kahn and Wohlstetter during the 1950s and 1960s?
Does the logic of those theories still pertain?
Beyond the realm of nuclear strategy, there are any number of other security-related questions
about which the American people deserve to hear directly from both Trump and Clinton, testing their
knowledge of the subject matter and the quality of their judgments. Among such matters, one in particular
screams out for attention. Consider it the question that Washington has declared off-limits: What
lessons should be drawn from America's costly and disappointing post-9/11 wars and how should those
lessons apply to future policy?
With Election Day now merely a month away, there is no more reason to believe that such questions
will receive serious consideration than to expect Trump to come clean on his
personal finances or Clinton to release the transcripts of her
handsomely compensated Goldman Sachs speeches.
When outcomes don't accord with his wishes, Trump reflexively
blames a "rigged" system. But a system that makes someone like Trump a finalist for the presidency
isn't rigged. It is manifestly absurd, a fact that has left most of the national media grasping wildly
for explanations (albeit none that tag them with having facilitated the transformation of politics
into theater).
I'll take a backseat to no one in finding Trump unfit to serve as president. Yet beyond the outsized
presence of one particular personality, the real travesty of our predicament lies elsewhere-in the
utter shallowness of our political discourse, no more vividly on display than in the realm of national
security.
What do our presidential candidates talk about when they don't want to talk about nuclear war?
The one, in a vain effort to conceal his own ignorance, offers rambling nonsense. The other, accustomed
to making her own rules, simply changes the subject.
The American people thereby remain in darkness. On that score, Trump, Clinton, and the parties
they represent are not adversaries. They are collaborators.
Trump was incredibly naοve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked
Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term
"first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition
of any premises essential to the question.
For God's sake, most Americans generally believe that the nation's police on nukes is that
we won't use them first. Introducing this kind of mixture of jargon and terms of art is good and
sufficient reason for rejecting the format of these awful "debates."
Dr. Bacevich is always insightful and worth reading. I wish we had a better choice of candidates.
I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer.
Sounds like the Colonel will be voting for the Democrat for the third time in a row (maybe fourth,
he probably voted for Kerry, too). Although the Democrats have been marginally better on foreign
policy, they totally devoted to open borders.
Mass immigration will lead to more attacks at home which will lead to more wars overseas. Invite
the world/invade the world go hand in hand.
"Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet
sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into
it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle
of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with
Hillary Clinton. "
Clinton's approach makes sense. She knows that the general public knows little and cares less
about nuclear minutiae, so she laid out her platitudes-which the public does understand-and raised
legitimate doubts about whether Trump would adopt a foreign policy as Joycean as his reply.
What did Bacevich tell us other than he is an expert in nuclear proliferation policy but the two
presidential candidates aren't. So what? We don't elect presidents to be nuclear war policy experts.
We elect them on how they use the monopoly that government grants them for the legitimate use
of power, coercion, deception and violence (we might call this "evil") . Do they use "evil" gratuitously
or for partisan purposes or self gain; or do they only use "evil" only as a last resort when there
is no other choice such as when Truman authorized dropping A-bombs on Japan? The self righteous
and arrogant Bacevich doesn't tell us which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-bad
or gratuitous outcomes.
Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention
away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported
the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered
countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself
from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous
purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation.
Trump advocates eminent domain but offered a widow four times the market value of her property
and lifetime occupancy in one of his luxury condos. The property was a rooming house the widow
never lived in on commercial zoned land. The property was foreclose on 20 years later for half
of what Trump offered her and the property was never acquired. Trump shows he does not use evil
gratuitously and is a generous person who nevertheless advocates the legal use of eminent domain
where necessary as a last resort.
Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives.
But this is what a leader is elected to do to use power and coercion to protect the people.
He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to
intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian
control of speech.
In sum, the Clintons put no limits on their use of "evil" for self gain or selling out to other
nations interests; while Trump wants to use soft power and voluntary market deals where possible
(eminent domain) or would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but in a limited and lawful
way.
So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons
have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence
peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect
the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort.
So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate
is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as
nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior
knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an
A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers
to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the
candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil".
The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to
be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use
evil-for-good or evil-for-ill.
"... I usually remark that one must look at the 'second tier' of a political cabal to predict future actions by a 'candidate.' The people surrounding the 'candidate' and their track records on issues in their sphere of expertise tell the mind sets that 'drive' policy. Trump comes from the business world, where delegation of responsibility is standard for larger enterprises. His 'advisors' are key to future performance. Clinton seems to be encapsulated in a bubble of sycophants. So, the same rationale applies to her as applies to Trump. Who are her main 'advisors?' ..."
"... As anyone possessed of discernment would have noticed in the 2008 campaign, Obama surrounded himself with 'less than progressive' advisors. His subsequent governance followed suit so that we find the nation in the mess it is in today. ..."
"... Finally, all signs are that the Russians are not taking this slide towards bellicosity lightly. The Russians are demonstrating a clear sighted view of Americas dysfunctions. For the Russians to hold massive Civil Defense drills now is a clear message; "We are preparing for the worst. How about you?" ..."
"... The tone of this piece is remarkably similar to a long article Bacevich headed in a recent Harper's article on US foreign policy. Presented as a roundtable discussion, it centered on the dogged insistence of some State Department-tied clown that Russia is The Aggressor, while Bacevich and a two other participants nicked away at her position, largely, as I recall, by granting the Russians some right to a regional interest. While they slowed her down, the great missing element was a characterization of global aims of the US her position reflected. ..."
"... In short, Bacevich, a good liberal, will not name the beast of US imperialism. As a result he makes it seem as though any policy can be judged on a truncated logic of its own, and so policy debates fragment into a disconnected series of arguments that bid for "fresh thinking" without daring to consider the underlying drivers. It's one of the reasons Eisenhower, with his criticism of the military-industrial complex, still comes across as a guiding light. ..."
"... I'll put it out there: We have too many upper-middle-class white women who claim to understand foreign policy who should have been subject to a draft to concentrate their minds on what happens when a person is forced into the military and sent off to drive around with a rifle as people lob bombs at them. Madeleine Albright is the classic case: "What good is our exquisite military, if I, a compassion-challenged expert, can't waste a lot of lives on my follies?" Bacevich's personal history means that he knows what war is about (as did Gen. Sherman). ..."
"... Perry is forthright when he says: "Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger." He also tells us that the nuclear danger is "growing greater every year" and that even a single nuclear detonation "could destroy our way of life." ..."
"... Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize. But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of NATO, right up to the Russian border,* and President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon. ..."
"... Interesting comments by Mr. Perry who had a starring role in 1979's "First Strike" propaganda film where he advocated for the MX ICBM system. ..."
"... So what's a voter to do? ..."
"... Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief. ..."
"... Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party. ..."
"... But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off. ..."
"... What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always ..."
"... All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia. ..."
"... Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear ..."
"... How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued participation in NATO. ..."
"... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
"... At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! " ..."
"... As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did not like. ..."
"... Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the financial corruption of his administration. ..."
"... If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement, perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice, and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation) ..."
"... HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled to "out-macho" the macho guys. ..."
"... The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for the Mark I body double is coming? ..."
"... On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has the intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When the opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding on the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming? ..."
"... And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?" ..."
Prof. Bacevitch has bought up the one overriding problem with this election cycle: Lack of
substance.
I usually remark that one must look at the 'second tier' of a political cabal to predict
future actions by a 'candidate.' The people surrounding the 'candidate' and their track records
on issues in their sphere of expertise tell the mind sets that 'drive' policy. Trump comes from
the business world, where delegation of responsibility is standard for larger enterprises. His
'advisors' are key to future performance. Clinton seems to be encapsulated in a bubble of sycophants.
So, the same rationale applies to her as applies to Trump. Who are her main 'advisors?'
As anyone possessed of discernment would have noticed in the 2008 campaign, Obama surrounded
himself with 'less than progressive' advisors. His subsequent governance followed suit so that
we find the nation in the mess it is in today.
Finally, all signs are that the Russians are not taking this slide towards bellicosity
lightly. The Russians are demonstrating a clear sighted view of Americas dysfunctions. For the
Russians to hold massive Civil Defense drills now is a clear message; "We are preparing for the
worst. How about you?"
As always, Prof. Bacevitch is a joy to read. Live long, prosper, and hope those in positions
of power take his message to heart.
The tone of this piece is remarkably similar to a long article Bacevich headed in a recent
Harper's article on US foreign policy. Presented as a roundtable discussion, it centered on the
dogged insistence of some State Department-tied clown that Russia is The Aggressor, while Bacevich
and a two other participants nicked away at her position, largely, as I recall, by granting the
Russians some right to a regional interest. While they slowed her down, the great missing element
was a characterization of global aims of the US her position reflected.
That's pretty much what's going on here. "Do we really need a trillion dollar upgrade to US
nuclear capability?" Good question. But why, oh why, Andrew is it being proposed in the first
place? (Actually O has been pursuing the preliminaries for some time.) There's nothing about feeding
a military-industrial complex, nothing about trying to further distort the Russian economy to
promote instability, nothing about trying to capitalize on the US' military superiority as its
economic hegemony slips away.
In short, Bacevich, a good liberal, will not name the beast of US imperialism. As a result
he makes it seem as though any policy can be judged on a truncated logic of its own, and so policy
debates fragment into a disconnected series of arguments that bid for "fresh thinking" without
daring to consider the underlying drivers. It's one of the reasons Eisenhower, with his criticism
of the military-industrial complex, still comes across as a guiding light.
The round-table in Harper's, for background. One of the "takeaways" that I had is that both
of the women who participated are gratuitously hawkish. I am now tending to favor a universal
draft.
I'll put it out there: We have too many upper-middle-class white women who claim to understand
foreign policy who should have been subject to a draft to concentrate their minds on what happens
when a person is forced into the military and sent off to drive around with a rifle as people
lob bombs at them. Madeleine Albright is the classic case: "What good is our exquisite military,
if I, a compassion-challenged expert, can't waste a lot of lives on my follies?" Bacevich's personal
history means that he knows what war is about (as did Gen. Sherman).
Knowing what war's all about doesn't help much with knowing why wars come about, I'm afraid.
Bacevich is not helpful here. This reminds me of a great article by Graham Allison on bureaucratic
drivers in the Cuban Missile crisis, set out as three competing/complementary theories. Within
its mypoic scope, excellent, but as far as helping with the Cold War context, nada. He went on
to scotomize away in a chair at Harvard, gazing out his very fixed Overton window of permissible
strategic critique.
Wow. I just went to the TomDispatch site to look at Bacevich's work there. He does have a piece
criticizing Trump and HRC in light of Eisenhower, but slaps Eisenhower, appropriately, for various
crap, including the military-industrial complex takeoff. Why is it missing from this article?
At least Eisenhower criticized it.
Surprised that Bacevitch omits the thrust of Jerry Brown's important review:
My Journey at the Nuclear Brink
by William J. Perry, with a foreword by George P. Shultz
Stanford Security Studies, 234 pp., $85.00; $24.95 (paper)
I know of no person who understands the science and politics of modern weaponry better than
William J. Perry, the US Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1997. When a man of such unquestioned
experience and intelligence issues the stark nuclear warning that is central to his recent
memoir, we should take heed. Perry is forthright when he says: "Today, the danger of some
sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and
most people are blissfully unaware of this danger." He also tells us that the nuclear danger
is "growing greater every year" and that even a single nuclear detonation "could destroy our
way of life."
Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize.
But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders
to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of
NATO, right up to the Russian border,* and President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon.
*"The descent down the slippery slope began, I believe, with the premature NATO expansion,
and I soon came to believe that the downsides of early NATO membership for Eastern European
nations were even worse than I had feared" (p. 152).
Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political
complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular
concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing
for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as
Commander-in-Chief.
Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has
proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy
on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a
significant number of people from his own party.
But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs.
some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in
a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull
it off.
What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the
generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate
to pull the trigger. An illuminating
article in the NY Times revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and
reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited.
All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest
thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone"
she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly,
as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia.
Her willingness to roll the dice, to gamble with other people's lives, is ingrained within
her political personality, of which she is so proud.
Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak
on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear . That fear is what drives
her to the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in
front of the criticism she anticipates.
It is what we can count on. She will most assuredly get America into a war within the first
6-9 months of her Presidency, since she will be looking forward to the muscular response she will
order when she is 'tested', as she expects.
How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief,
Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of
responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between
Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a
threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued
participation in NATO.
These differences alone are enough to move me to actually vote for someone I find politically
detestable, simply because I fear that the alternative is a high probability of war, and a greatly
enhanced risk of nuclear annihilation-through miscalculation-under a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
Yep. In the meantime, you have to wonder just how bad the false choice between the GOP / Dem
has to be before people vote in numbers for a better third-party candidate? Really, can it possible
get any worse than Trump v. Clinton?
Between this post and the VP debate I am growing comfortable with a decision to vote Green
and will probably continue voting Green in future elections.
Not that this isn't an important issue, but I disagree on the desirability of posing wonkish
questions in presidential debates, in the hopes of proving that someone didn't do enough homework.
Far too much policy is hidden by the constant recourse to bureaucratic language, which often rests
on other policy positions that remain undiscussed. One example: "chained CPI". Talking about it
/ taking it seriously presupposes that you subscribe to the notion that poor people may be told
to eat cardboard if some economist / committee member designated such an adequate replacement
for food. Yet most listeners will not catch on to that fact, were it ever to even come up in a
debate.
Words are just words, especially for politicians. If you want an idea of how they would govern,
go by what they did in the past. Right now we have the choice between a touchy blowhard with bad
hair and a mendacious conniver with bad judgement; you'd be foolish take anything either says
too seriously, even aside from the fact that they're wannabe politicians.
The response to why the nuclear arsenals need to be so large and constantly updated would have
been an interesting one if it had materialized. The fact is even a fairly limited exchange between
other nuclear powers with much smaller arsenals has the potential for rapid climate change that
renders Earth unlivable.
The Cold War notion that you just have to hole up a few days to avoid fallout doesn't really
make any more sense than using these weapons in the first place.
Just along these line, I did some order of magnitude calculations based on the US SLBM fleet.
Since the MIRV warheads are dial a yield, I calculated a range of 1210 1915 Megatons.
I know your point is more on the limited exchange scenario; just wanted to point out the destructive
potential of one country's submarine nuclear capability.
Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of
wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps
into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle
of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with
Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live
on.
And when a person keeps pointing out the importance of keeping one's word, it almost always
means that he or she is lying.
At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble
with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends,
they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! "
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from
prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did
not like.
Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in
the financial corruption of his administration.
The Presidency was pushed on him, and he admitted felt he was not qualified.
I believe Harding gets a bad rap because he was not the leader of bold actions (wars) and the
corruption of people in his administration was well-documented.
His death was widely mourned in the USA.
As far as long term harm to the country, the do-nothing Harding was not bad for the country.
If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding
who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement,
perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice,
and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation)
Clinton is probably well coached by well paid advisors in her oratory.
Probably Harding wrote his own..
I would prefer Clinton to be like the old Harding, and the country would muddle through.
All it would take would be for a couple of strategically placed EMPs over the north american
continent ..
and poof . nothing functions anymore . while we get to stand and watch our 'supreme' military
launch their roman candles .
When it comes to war & nukes, I believe that HRC is the more dangerous of the two.
Before I explain, I would like to invite Yves or any female NC reader to consider & give their
POV on what I'm about say.
HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a
position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must
not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled
to "out-macho" the macho guys.
Obviously this could have serious implications in any situation involving escalating tensions.
Negotiation or compromise would be off the table if she thought it could be perceived as soft
or weak (and she contemplates being a 2 term pres.)
What say you NC readers? Is this a justified concern or am I letting male bias color my view?
The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability
that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for
the Mark I body double is coming?
On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has
the intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When
the opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding
on the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming?
And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says
or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember
Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?"
"... The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better, safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure. ..."
"... Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair. ..."
"... When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done. ..."
"... Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy' on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least. ..."
"... The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence of Hillary Clinton and her boss. ..."
"... If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state. That's who you are. ..."
"... Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation and execution squarely on you. ..."
"... HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either, given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern) http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21 ..."
"... The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. ..."
"... One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. ..."
@ 278 There's nothing quite so amusing as advocates of free speech 'commanding' the comments section
of somebody else's blog and then issuing permissions to comment, or instructions to how and what
to post. (fn, rich, colin, TM in one form, or another)
Merian is quite right that in the artificially and arbitrarily limited universe of a one-time
choice between just two options, everything written can be seen as pro/con against one or the
other if everything that is written has only one meaning and will be read and understood
by all as having the same meaning.
The fact is that a great many people inside the US and outside the US may well lack any/much
understanding of the decision-making processes that led up to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria,
not to mention America's long history with Iran, and America's support of Evil Axis bad guy number
1 Saddam Hussein. The dynamics are complex even for those familiar with the basic topography.
The rhetorical parallels leading up to the Iraq invasions and the presidential elections are
striking and easy to identify. Facts don't matter, the urgency and severity of the threat demands
uniform action, and the enemy is a once in an eon threat of epic proportion to the physical and
moral existence of the known universe.
The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better,
safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue
policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure.
Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like
the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most
as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility
and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair.
When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity
for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize
the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging
humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done.
For Merian and others: a timely post from Matt Welch at Reason on Gary Johnson via the o'l perfessor
who sees the coverage of Hillary and Trump as you.
28 September 2015 "Obama tells the UN Assad must go."
18 August 2011 "Assad Must Go Obama Says" (Wapo) (no links to follow to avoid moderation)
1 August 2012 "Obama Authorizes Secret US Support for Syrian Rebels" (Reuters)
Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy'
on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been
arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least.
The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase
in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services
such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence
of Hillary Clinton and her boss.
All this after the 'lessons' of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East
and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state.
That's who you are.
kidneystones 10.02.16 at 3:58 am
ZM@ 303. The linked dialogue above explores the role Hillary and Obama, in particular, played
in providing the arms and support to a rebellion that Assad, like Gaddafi, could have ended years
ago.
Like Gaddafi, Assad is not being attacked by moderate democrats keen to legalize gay marriage,
but rather Sunni militias deeply sympathetic to ISIL and Al Quaida, or those forces operating
in Syria and western Iraq.
You're right to point out that the only result of US support of ISIL related Sunnis has been
the prolonging of the civil war and the promulgation of the delusion that violent-regime change
brings peace and security. Yes, five years of US arms, threats, and intimidation has destroyed
Syria, in much the same was as the Hillary promoted war in Libya destroyed that regime.
The pro-Hillary-Obama media is extremely reluctant in the run-up to the election to point out
explicitly what a spectacular FP failure the US has created for itself right now, with Russian
jets flying over Aleppo and Assad about to finally humiliate the insurgents and all those like
Hillary and Obama who encouraged the bloodshed.
The Obama-Hillary policy has been a five-year bloodbath and there's no sign Hillary wants to
do anything but press for a no-fly zone over Syria in order for the US to continue to funnel more
death and destruction into the already devastated moonscape.
It ain't like anyone she knows is dying over there. Syrians can't vote in November.
The attitude of her supporters seems be: fuck it Syria is on the other side of the world,
so what's the big deal?
Mitt Romney tied the family dog to the roof of his car. What about that ?
kidneystones 10.02.16 at 4:05 am
@ 305 Hi Merian.
Go tell your students that you're supporting the candidate who voted for the Iraq invasion
(biggest mistake in modern US history), persuaded plenty of other Democrats and ordinary Americans
to suspend their judgment and do the same. And who also played an instrumental role in destroying
Libya, promotes violent regime-change in Syria and enjoys the support of all the same neocon warmongers
who've made the US into a pariah state. Play the 'We came, we saw, he died ha-ha-ha" Hillary
CBS video for them.
Then explain to them that Hillary is the better candidate.
See what happens.
Omega Centauri 10.02.16 at 4:40 am 314
I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq or Libya. In the first case Iraq was a neocon/Bush
project, and they were threatening to extract a terrible price from anyone who used their position
to block their ambitions. Libya was primarily a Arab-league cum French-British project. Not supporting
it could have potentially damaged our relationship with key allies France and Britain. Of course
Libya was a slippery slope, once started it soon became obvious there was no solution where Qaddafi
survived and the Libyan people wouldn't end up paying dearly. Not that her acquiescence in either
case demonstrated either good long term judgement or courage, but it also doesn't demonstrate
that she was a principle architect of either project.
314@ "I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq, or Libya."
That's probably a great comfort to the grifters keen to see her elected. The facts, however,
suggest otherwise. Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary
of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign
policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign
policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation
and execution squarely on you.
HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either,
given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush
and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern)
http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21
bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 7:49 pm
Anarcissie @ 239: We basically have a whole class of people, at the top of the social order,
who seem devoid of a moral sense - a problem which the upcoming election isn't going to touch,
much less solve. I don't blame Clinton for this . . .
JimV @ 317: I am sorry if I mischaracterized BW as implying that HRC is evil, . . .
Peter T @ 320: Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose
that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess [the multi-sided
regional civil war engulfing Syria and northern Iraq]
stevenjohnson @ 324: The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles
and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's
not quite on board with plans for general war.
LFC @ 330: I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear 'modernization' is to make plausible
the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military planners took hallucinogenic drugs
and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general nuclear war" right now with the
US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade the weapons to do that.
The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top levels of Pentagon
and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.
I don't know if that seems like a somewhat random collection of precursors to assemble as preface
to a comment. I was thinking of picking out a few upthread references to climate change and the
response to it (or inadequacy thereof) as well.
I am a little disturbed by the idea of leaving the impression that I think Hillary Clinton
is "evil". What I think is that American politics in general is not generating realistic, adaptive
governance.
I am using that bloodless phrase, "realistic, adaptive governance", deliberately, to emphasize
wanting to step outside the passions of the Presidential election. I think the Manichean narrative
where Trump is The Most Horrible Candidate Evah and Everyone Must Line Up Behind Clinton as an
Ethical Imperative of a High Order is part of the process of propaganda and manipulation that
distorts popular discussion and understanding and helps to create a politics that cannot govern
realistically and adaptively. This is not about me thinking Trump is anything but a horrible mess
of a candidate who ought to be kept far from power.
I see Clinton as someone who is trapped inside the dynamics of this seriously deranged politics
qua political process. I don't see her as entirely blameless. Politicians like Obama and either
Clinton, at the top of the political order, are masters (keeping in mind that there are many masters
working to some extent in opposition to one another as rivals, allies, enemies and so on) of the
process and create the process by the exercise of their mastery, as much as they are mastered
by it. I see them as trapped by the process they have helped (more than a little opportunistically)
to create, but trapped as Dr Frankenstein is by his Creature.
Clinton must struggle with the ethical contradictions of governance at the highest levels of
leadership: she must, in the exercise of power in office and out, practice the political art of
the possible in relation to crafting policy that will be "good" in the sense of passably effective
and efficient - this may involve a high degree of foresightful wonkery or a lethally ruthless
statesmanship, depending upon circumstances. Beside this business of making the great machinery
of the state lumber forward, she must strive to appear "good", like Machiavelli's Prince, even
while playing an amoral game of real politick, gathering and shepherding a complex coalition of
allies, supporters, donors and cooperative enemies.
Machiavelli, when he was considering the Princely business of appearing "good", was contending
with the hypocrisies and impossible idealism of authoritarian Catholic morality. He barely connected
with anything that we would recognize as democratic Public Opinion and could scarcely conceive
of what Ivy Lee or Edward Bernays, let alone Fox News, Vox and the world wide web might do to
politics.
We are trapped, just as Clinton is trapped, in the vast communication nightmare of surrealistic
news and opinion washing in upon us in a tide that never ebbs. We are trapped by the politics
of media "gotchas" and Kinsley Gaffes (A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some
truth that a politician did not intend to admit.)
I don't think Clinton lacks a moral sense. What I think is that Clinton's moral sense is exhausted
calculating what to say or do within the parameters of media-synthesized conventional wisdom policed
by people who are themselves exhausted trying to manage it. Matt Lauer's interview with Clinton
was notorious for the relentless and clueless questioning about the email server, although I,
personally, was shocked when he asked her a question that seemed premised on the idea that veterans
should be offended by admitting the Iraq War was a mistake.
I would think it is easy to see that the media circus is out of control, especially when a
clown like Trump graduates from The Apprentice to the Republican nomination. YMMV, but
I think this is a serious problem that goes beyond vividly imagined sepia-toned parodies of Trump's
candidacy as the second coming of Mussolini.
While we're getting ourselves agitated over Trump's racism or threats to bar Muslims from entry,
apparently the Military-Industrial Complex, left on autopilot, is re-designing the nation's nuclear
arsenal to make the outbreak of nuclear war far more likely. And, the closest Clinton gets to
a comment, campaign commitment or public discussion, let alone an exercise of power, is a PR "leak"!!!
The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having
a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. Clinton offered up a sound-bite last year,
saying that she favored imposing a "no-fly" zone, which was exposed as kind of crazy idea, given
that the Russians as well as Assad's government are the ones flying, not to mention the recent
experience with a no-fly zone in Libya. One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as
a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright
and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more
likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has
enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. What's most
alarming to me is that we cannot count on personal character to put the brakes on that process,
which is now the process of governance. I am writing now of the process of governance by public
relations that was has been exposed a bit in profiles of the Deputy National Security Advisor
for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes.
In Syria, it has become almost comical, if you can overlook the bodies piling up, as the U.S.
has sought a the mythical unicorn of Syrian Moderate Democrats whom the Pentagon or the CIA can
advise, train and arm. This is foreign policy by PR narrative and it is insanely unrealistic.
But, our politics is trapped in it, and, worse, policy is trapped in it. Layer after layer of
b.s. have piled up obscuring U.S. interests and practical options. Recently, U.S. forces supporting
the Turks have come dangerously close to blowing up U.S. forces supporting the Kurds. When you
find yourself on opposing sides of a civil war like Charles I you may be in the process of losing
your head. Some of the worst elements opposing Assad have been engaged in a transparent re-branding
exercise aimed at garnering U.S. aid. And, U.S. diplomats and media face the high challenge of
explaining why the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
But, hey, Clinton will get Robert Kagan's vote and a better tomorrow is only a Friedman unit
away, so it is all good.
kidneystones 10.02.16 at 9:24 pm
@328 stevenjohnson and Peter T cover the details. As an outsider supportive of negotiated settlements
in all cases, rather than unilateral military action and violent regime change, I'm interested
principally in ensuring that partisan political preferences do not obscure the historical record.
Bluntly put, dictators routinely abuse bomb their own civilians as the 'need' arises. Nor is the
US the only state actor keen to profit in the broadest sense of the term from political division.
The UN was formed, in large part, to provide a forum/mechanism for peaceful conflict resolution.
Each time state actors such as Russia, China, the US, France, and the UK either bypass the UN,
or use the UN to sanction attacks by larger states on smaller states, the entire edifice becomes
a little weaker.
Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply
the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president
of the US.
bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 9:54 pm
Rich Puchalsky @ 334
People are in information overload most of the time, and where politics are concerned, they
really just want to know who to root for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?"
"Whose right?" "What should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those
opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of self-esteem and social
belonging, for better and for worse.
I have some friends, who are really into a particular sport as fans, not participants. One
guy knows everything about baseball. It is fun to watch a game with him, because he knows when
someone is about to try to steal a base and stuff like that and he can explain the manager's strategy
and has gossip about the players careers and personal lives. And, apparently, he has an encyclopedic
knowledge of baseball history - appears to, anyway: what dramatic thing happened in game 3 of
the 1967 World Series and so on and exactly why everyone hated Ty Cobb.
No one like that shows up at CT to talk politics. Maybe it is just as well. Sports guys can
wield that knowledge and remain affable, but political guys tend to be arrogant and off-putting.
But, I do think we could use more of that spirit sometimes.
I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation is, how well it is
designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince. But, we would struggle to discuss it in
those terms; the partisan contest means that the CF is either horribly corrupt or prosaically
innocent. The pressure to evaluate it is so high, that seeing the functional details is hard.
I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to the political ambitions
of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome accomplishment it is in ways that also fully
understand why enemies of the Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the
neoliberal pablum that Thomas Franks despises. If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a
vehicle of class interest, that would be pretty interesting.
"... "Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US." ..."
"... The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table. ..."
"... I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects. ..."
"... One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup. ..."
"... Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few of them really like being foot soldiers for empire. ..."
"... Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations. One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic "humanitarian" wars. ..."
"... So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context? ..."
"... Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence in xUSSR space. ..."
"... Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges. ..."
"... Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially taking many functions formerly performed by CIA ..."
"... It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy. Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under Hillary Clinton). ..."
"... ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out. ..."
"... The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the list. ..."
"... Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something. ..."
"... To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative, since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting: we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!") ..."
"... But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global military/economic power struggles. ..."
"... And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives, they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll settle for just calling it bizarre. ..."
"... American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it. ..."
"... Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice. Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool. ..."
"... ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis. ..."
"... Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been. Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad. He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job - so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after. ..."
"... Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively. I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political economy. ..."
"... Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want to believe. ..."
"... Ch. 1: The Advent of Semiwar. ..."
"... Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control ..."
"... Ch. 3: The Credo Restored. ..."
"... "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all." ..."
"... The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit. ..."
"... Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. ..."
"... Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual. ..."
"... It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of your own independent moral compass and political thought. ..."
"... If you need an eloquent summary of how the dysfunction of the American political system has become manifest in a foreign policy of perpetual and costly failure . ..."
"Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's
simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th
president of the US."
Very true. The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in
power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because
this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table.
But I think it is a mistake to view Syria regime change actions of US neocons in isolation
from the same actions in Ukraine. Those are closely interconnected events.
And Nuland action in Ukraine for the installation of far right nationalist regime (and virtual
occupation of the rest of Ukraine by Western Ukrainian nationalists) virtually guarantee economic
and military alliance of China and Russia. Russia will not forget and will not forgive Nuland's
valiant efforts of installing far right nationalists in Kiev instead of corrupt Yanukovich regime,
despite the fact that they were not very sympathetic to Yanukovich (and refused to play the card
of "legitimate president in exile", which they easily can making US position in Kiev untenable).
I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria
quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects.
IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat of
direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep the
boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups (which
are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with their Kurds
militia.
And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation
in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators.
If you add to China-Russia alliance cemented by events in Ukraine Pakistan, where anti-American
feelings are also quite strong you can see the net result of Barack foreign policy efforts.
Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this alliance
and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad cop, good
cop approach).
I'm starting to believe that there may be a Putin troll operation and that with the commenter
Ze K gone, the operation has sent commenter likbez to the Crooked Timber plate as pinch-hitter.
(Sorry for the baseball metaphor. Turning off computer now.)
"IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat
of direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep
the boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups
(which are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with
their Kurds militia.
And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation
in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators."
I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. I think the Obama foreign policy
has been an improvement on the Bush government's foreign policy, and Obama inherited a very bad
situation if you look at him coming to the Presidency in 2008.
What does Russian foreign policy want now that the Cold War is over? America power is on the
decline with the rise of other countries, and Russian power is on the decline too. Both countries
had a lot of power due to the Cold War after WWII ended and the lack of development in many countries,
and Europe needing to rebuild so much after the war.
But why does Syria need to be a proxy war between America and Russia when the Cold War is over?
Someone from Afghanistan was telling me recently that in Afghanistan they consider they have had
war ongoing for 50 years now, since they had the wars with Russia years ago, and then they have
had the wars with America now, plus the country is riven by splits now after wars for so long.
The Middle East is going to need a lot of help to rebuild after these wars, they don't need
Russia and America fighting over power in the region.
"Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this
alliance and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad
cop, good cop approach)."
Also, I live in Australia so we have more coverage of Asian politics, and Obama has been pretty
good with China overall I think. China got cross about the pivot to Asia, and gave The Philippines
a very sharp warning in the official newspaper, and gave Australia a caution in the newspaper,
since then its all gone reasonably well I think.
Ah, foreign policy. I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin
troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments,
and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's
assumptions.
I'll write some more about populism. One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is
how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC
again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup.
One of the things that people forget about populism is that it's generally a revolt against
that - Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few
of them really like being foot soldiers for empire.
Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war
agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations.
One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any
important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic
"humanitarian" wars.
So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical
interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that
we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have
any meaning outside of an imperial context?
"I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. "
Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on
preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence
in xUSSR space.
Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime
change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as
the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda
centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political
establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later
events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political
force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges.
The USA also try to play Islamic insurgence card via proxies and hurt economics of Russia via
sanctions and low oil prices (which simultaneously decimated US own shale/LTO oil industry). Obama
actually bragged about the latter.
My impression is that this is just a part of the more general plan of expansion of global neoliberal
empire led by the USA, enforcing neoliberal globalization and crushing all opposing regimes (including
"resource nationalists" like Russia ) that Obama administration is hell bent on (neocon vision
of "Pax Americana"). Obama (or, more correctly, forces behind him) proved to be a staunch neoliberal
(and neocon) on par with Bush II and Bill Clinton and he essentially continued Bush II "muscular"
foreign policy.
Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during
her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to
stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially
taking many functions formerly performed by CIA
I think that Russia foreign policy can be understood as not always successful attempts to counter
the attempts of the USA to subdue it and survive in the situation when then the major power using
affiliated with it states tries to deny its sovereignty and wants to convert into vassal state
(and Russia were the US vassal under Yeltsin regime), or, if possible, to dismember it into smaller
and weaker states using the rising wave of nationalism in the regions.
It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states
around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy.
Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department
of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in
close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under
Hillary Clinton).
As Russophobia replaced anti-Semitism for the US elite, I see nothing good for Russia in this
respect in the future.
So the rearmament attempts and the attempts to develop alternatives to Western strategic products
and services (which at any time can be included under sanctions) as well as more deep political
and military alliance with China might well be their only options.
But China has its own geopolitical aspirations in xUSSR region and wants to play a leading
role in this alliance using Russia's difficult situation for its own advantage.
So Russian situation is not enviable and might soon became worse, in Hilary is elected.
Moreover, Putin in not eternal, and at some point needs to leave his position and that, taking
into account the amount of power he concentrated in his hands, might create the leadership vacuum
that will be very dangerous taking into consideration the level of hostility of the USA. Coming
to power of more nationalistically oriented politicians on the wave of anti-American sentiments
produced by sanctions also can't be excluded.
I am not a specialist in Russian affairs, so please take those considerations with a grain
of salt.
ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed
to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out.
'So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical
interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments
that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these
have any meaning outside of an imperial context?'
The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going
well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did
not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were
going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of
them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the
list.
But on the other side, at the business end of the stick:
Cet animal est trθs mιchant;
Quand on l'attaque, il se dιfend.
"No one wants one country to rule the world as if its Lord Of The Rings"
Oh, come on. I'd completely vote for Sauron. That all-seeing eye would spy out all foreign
armies and spies, except for hobbits of course. Regretfully, in our own defense, we'd have to
bomb all hobbit terrorist villages.
Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes
alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then
there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something.
But its not really what anyone hardly wants as far as I can tell.
I had no idea there even was that much information collected by the government on people until
the Snowdon whistleblower revelations about the NSA.
Rich @ 348: "I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin
troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments,
and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's
assumptions."
To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative,
since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely
a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class
figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting:
we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but
since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend
our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know
Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!")
There's probably a lot more that can be said about this, but at least as far as the non-ruling-class
public is concerned, what Americans call "partisanship" in this Inside-Baseball sense can be read
as a political analogue of the apocryphal Steinbeck line about temporarily embarrassed millionaires,
absurdly overinflating the importance of their own little Machiavellian calculations to maintain
a pathetically optimistic political self-image, not as the depoliticized and socially atomized
ideological consumers they actually are, but as temporarily embarrassed technocratic insiders.
But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that
ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad
but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global
military/economic power struggles.
And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents
of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the
Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives,
they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian
servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll
settle for just calling it bizarre.
bruce wilder , 10.03.16 at 2:51 pm
American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of
the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it.
Early in the 19th century, it was Yankee traders in China and South America paddling their
boats in the British Empire's wake. The Americans were there, junior partners and useful instruments
of British foreign policy: Monroe Doctrine, founding Hong Kong, opening Japan and Korea, disciplining
unruly or bankrupt Latin American states. The U.S. nearly matched the British in the race to build
Dreadnoughts before the First World War, proclaimed the Open Door in China, neutralized the German
Navy in Morocco and in the Venezuela Crisis, and finally settled the First World War.
Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal
principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice.
Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering
abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline
into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing
tool.
ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world"
I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that
demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis.
Will G-R: liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely
the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!")
I'm not sure that's the relevant analogue.
Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been.
Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad.
He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job
- so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after.
Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively.
I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform
agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political
economy. But, he chose not to play the game at that level of risk, and I think history will
judge him to be weak because of the consequences, though he has not been politically weak and
he has been remarkably successful in terms of his chosen agenda.
Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more
benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want
to believe. No one believes the Russians are a benign force, especially in Russia's Near
Abroad.
The scary thing is that Americans have been propagandized into thinking Clinton is competent,
that she will be the adult in the room, the experienced leader who will take the call at 3 am
(and not tweet out some link to a porn tape).
In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she
is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial
complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all.
That Clinton is so cavalier about making Putin the scapegoat for her email problems is an early
indication that she doesn't know what she is doing.
I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing
that would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe
out their barbaric "mathom culture".
First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this premodern habit of putting
their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And the way they waste food
- has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know that drones are a harsh
remedy, but really.
And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone
even heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive
holes, and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted
homosocial orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping
them down as well as some of their children.
And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire?
Where did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for
bodies as well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that
we shouldn't bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like
not to have the privilege that they do.
likbez 10.03.16 at 3:48 pm
Bruce,
@ 358
"ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world"
I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy
that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis."
As president, Barack Obama's efforts to change the U.S.'s exercise of power "have seldom risen
above the cosmetic"(20). He made clear he subscribes to the "catechism of American statecraft,"
viz. that 1) the world must be organized, 2)only the U.S. can do it, 3) this includes dictating
principles, and 4) not to accept this is to be a rogue or a recalcitrant (20-21).
It follows that the U.S. need not conform to the norms it sets for others and that it should
maintain a worldwide network of bases (22-23).
Imagine if China acted in a comparable manner (23-25). The extraordinary American military
posture in the world (25-27). To call this into question puts one beyond the pale(27). James Forrestal
called this a permanent condition of semiwar, requiring high levels of military spending(27-28).
American citizens are not supposed to concern themselves with it (29-30). As to how this came
about, the "standard story line" presents as the result of the decisions of a "succession of presidential
administrations," though this conceals as much as it reveals (30-32).
Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address on the "military-industrial complex" was a rare exception
(32-34). More important than presidents were Allen Dulles [1893-1969] and Curtis Lemay [1906-1990]
(34-36).
Bacevich attributes the vision for an American-dominated post-World War II world with the CIA
playing an active role to the patrician Dulles (36-43). The development of the U.S. military into
a force capable of dominating the world, especially in the area of strategic weapons, he attributes
to the hard-bitten Curtis LeMay, organizer of the StrategicAir Command (SAC) (43-52). Dulles and
LeMay shared devotion to country, ruthlessness, a certain recklessness (52-55). They exploited
American anxieties and insecurities in yin (Dulles's CIA) yang(LeMay's SAC) fashion, leaving the
mainstay of American military power, the U.S. Army, in a relatively weak position(55-58).
Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control
Kennedy kept Dulles and LeMay to signal continuity, but there was a behind-the-scenes struggle
led by Gen. Maxwell Taylor to reassert the role of the U.S. Army by expanding and modernizing
conventional forces that was "simultaneously masked by, and captured in, the phrase flexible response
" (60; 59-63).
This agenda purported to aim at "resisting aggression" but really created new options for limited
aggressive warfare by the U.S. (63-66).
McNamara engaged in a struggle with LeMay to control U.S. policy on nuclear weapons, but he embraced
the need for redundancy based on a land-sea-air attack "triad" and LeMay et al. "got most of what
they wanted" (66-72).
In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy instituted the morally and legally "indefensible"
Operation Mongoose," in effect, a program of state-sponsored terrorism" against Cuba (80; 72-82
[but Bacevich is silent on its wilder elements, like Operation Northwoods]).
U.S. recklessness caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to his credit Kennedy acknowledged this
(albeit privately) and "suspended the tradition" in defusing the crisis (82-87).
Bacevich rejects as a romantic delusion the view that in the aftermath of this crisis Kennedy
turned against the military-industrial complex and the incipient Vietnam war and shows no interest
in Kennedy's assassination itself (87-92).
He sees a parallel between escalation in Vietnam and post-9/11 aggression as "fought to sustain
the Washington consensus" (107; 92-107).
Ch. 3: The Credo Restored.
William Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power (1966) urged a rethinking of the Washington rules
(109-15). A radicalized David Shoup, a Medal of Honor winner and former commandant of the MarineCorps,
argued in "The New American Militarism" (Atlantic, April 1969) that the U.S. had become "a militaristic
and aggressive nation" (120; 115-21). The 1960s Zeitgeist shift made LeMay "an embarrassment,
mocked and vilified rather than venerated," which showed that the Washington rules had incurred
serious damage in Vietnam; the Army was in dire shape (122; 121-27).
Yet astonishingly, in the subsequent decade the "sacred trinity" (cf. 11-15) was "fully restored"
(127). As in post-1918 Germany, ιlites looked for scapegoats and worked to reverse "the war's
apparent verdict" (128). The Council on Foreign Relations 1976 volume entitled The Vietnam Legacy:
The War, American Society, and the Future of American Foreign Policy is an expression of ιlite
consensus that the Vietnam war was insignificant, an anomaly (129-34).
By 1980, Democrats and Republicans were again on the same page (134-36).Reagan's election "sealed
the triumph of Vietnam revisionism" (136; 136-38). And the end of the Cold War posed no challenge
to the Washington rules, as Madeleine Albright's pretentious arrogance exemplifies (138-45).
stevenjohnson 10.03.16 at 3:55 pm
"In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that
she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial
complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."
Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the
vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government
which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not
restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of
nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.
The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds
that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly
mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about
Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating
the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised
when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.
Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather
than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having
no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he
only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of
select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves.
Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism.
He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization
of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist
restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual.
Bruce, I meant "bad" in a good/evil sense, not a competent/incompetent sense. Clinton partisans
may be fairly unanimous in waxing rhapsodic about her competence, but plenty of them are willing
to cop to her position as a defender of an ultimately evil form of ruling-class power, they simply
think it shouldn't be talked about (see Collin Street @ 184 for an exemplary specimen).
It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of
ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively
defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of
your own independent moral compass and political thought. The point of this facade isn't
what the lemming-like hordes of Clinton defenders (or Putin defenders, if they're Russian) are
actually accomplishing, which is essentially nothing; the point is what they're not accomplishing,
which is any meaningfully subversive reflection about how ruling-class power works in general
and how the governed classes might effectively counter it.
"... The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter, where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will) is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology, which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined, we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East. ..."
"... He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism and who is a terrorist and why they do it. ..."
"... He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping, even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq, but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). ..."
Blocking Consensus: A Critical View of "America's War for the Greater Middle East: A
Military History" , April 15, 2016
"America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the third book I have read by Andrew Bacevich,
who has unique authority to speak on the subject as the war claimed his son's life. Unfortunately,
this book lacks the power of the first two books, "The Limits of Power" and "Breach of Trust."
The overall indictment of American society that it delivers was more convincing in "Breach of
Trust," or perhaps I am simply blinded by the very ideology that Bacevich decries in this book.
I have bought into the status quo in this respect: I believe some, if not most, of the goods recognized
by Americans are indeed universal. I am unwilling to concede that the millions of Afghan girls
and women who got an education in the years after the Taliban's control of that country were first
challenged would be better off if we had never gone in. I also believe that the number of casualties
we are now sustaining in CENTCOM and AFRICOM is low enough that what we are doing is sustainable
indefinitely, unless the Muslim world gets so angry at us that it unites into a new superpower
to challenge us globally. This will disappoint a lot of people and isn't necessarily consistent
with what I have argued at other times but the absence of even one critical review on Amazon was
something I couldn't stomach anymore.
Per Bacevich, the first American lives lost in America's War for the Greater Middle East were
the fatalities of the aircraft collision as special operators were queuing up to leave Desert
One after the mission was called off. I think it does a disservice to President Carter to imply
that sending troops for a rescue mission committed the United States to perpetual war for unachievable
aims, or even to call it the Poland of this war. Bacevich's position that the Carter Doctrine
calling for the free transit of Saudi and other Gulf Arab oil through the Straits of Hormuz made
Desert One and other interventions inevitable is somewhat more supportable.
The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter,
where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously
argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said
aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will)
is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to
chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology,
which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined,
we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East.
This book is headed for some Books of the Year lists and maybe some awards. It's well researched,
unusually well-written and deeply disturbing. It is not an easy read; there are hundreds of names,
locations and events over four decades. It deals with how we got into the mess, how we kept at
it and how we're not going to get out. That's the disturbing point, the number of factors that
indicate that we are going to continue with what the book calls the War for the Greater Middle
East. I wish he was wrong, but his case is overwhelming and logically developed. Rather than describe
this book as other reviews have done, I'll consider some details that struck me and add a couple
of quotes to give the flavor. Note: the author has strong opinions, and has ample criticism for
all presidents from Carter to Obama, and strong criticism of many generals, but Republican readers
will not like some of his comments, one cited below. His overall view is rather similar to the
famed quote from World War 1, about lions led by donkeys.
"...combined incoherence with self-deception, both to become abiding hallmarks of America's
evolving War for the Greater Middle East." (44).
"Like the present-day GOP, the Northern Alliance was a loose coalition of unsavory opportunists,
interested chiefly in acquiring power." (227)
"Instead of intimidating, US military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated
a lack of both competence and determination." (367).
He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism
and who is a terrorist and why they do it. The book covers in considerable detail the Carter
actions in Iran, Reagan's Marines in Lebanon, the Bush's wars in Iraq, Clinton's actions in Somalia--in
considerable detail, these actions involved 38,000 US troops at one point, and resulted quite
simply in defeat. He notes that US actions in Bosnia and Kosovo rescued Muslims, who now are enlisting
in considerable numbers as jihadis in the Middle East. In Kosovo he notes that US protection resulted
in a Kosovar state that promptly engaged in an ethnic cleansing of Serbs. He notes that US troops
defeated Iraq's military but the numbers were too small to effectively deal with Baghdad (a city
of 5 million at the time), leading to the collapse of law and order. He thinks the point of defeat
is the incident of Abu Ghraib.
He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping,
even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq,
but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis
fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). Putting situations that tend to be forgotten
about in succession with larger events makes it obvious that the war began under Carter and has
simmered ever since, with periodic intensifications.
And near the book's end he discusses several reasons why the war is going to continue. One,
there is no anti-war or effective anti-interventionist party. Two, electoral expediency means
major party candidates will continue to support military actions. Three, some individuals and
organizations (and companies) benefit from continued war (jobs, military contracts). Four, Americans
largely seem oblivious to the war. There's more, but these are main reasons.
The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't
committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on
board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear
war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this
was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups.
(It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.)
I had not heard about this (perhaps an indication of how closely or not I'm following the election
news). If HRC is indeed has some doubts about the wisdom of nuclear 'modernization', that's all to
the good. Mainstream Democratic-leaning think tanks, at least one that I'm aware of, have questioned
the modernization necessity and expense, e.g. in a report co-authored by Lawrence Korb, a former
Reagan admin defense official.
Will refrain from further comment except to say that I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear
'modernization' is to make plausible the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military
planners took hallucinogenic drugs and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general
nuclear war" right now with the US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade
the weapons to do that. The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top
levels of Pentagon and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.
stevenjohnson
10.02.16
at 7:10 pm
One aspect of the upgrade is about improving the feasibility of using tactical
nukes.
"Shimon Peres 2 years ago: I stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran, and you can talk about it when I'm dead"
by Natasha Bertrand...9-30-2016...36m
" Former Israeli president Shimon Peres, who died on Wednesday at the age of 93, told the Jerusalem Post two years ago that
current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "was ready to launch an attack" on Iran, and "I stopped him."
Peres, speaking to the Post's Steve Linde and David Brinn in a meeting at the Peres Center for Peace in Jaffa on August 24,
2014, apparently said he didn't want to go into details about the conversation he had had with Netanyahu..."
In recent years, Russia and the United States have started
rebuilding their Cold War nuclear arsenals, putting the world
on the threshold of a dangerous new arms race. But we don't
have to repeat the perilous drama of the 20th century. We can
maintain our country's strength and security and still do
away with the worst of the Cold War weapons.
The American plan to rebuild and maintain our nuclear
force is needlessly oversize and expensive, expected to cost
about $1 trillion over the next three decades. This would
crowd out the funding needed to sustain the competitive edge
of our conventional forces and to build the capacities needed
to deal with terrorism and cyberattacks.
The good news is that the United States can downsize its
plans, save tens of billions of dollars, and still maintain a
robust nuclear arsenal.
First and foremost, the United States can safely phase out
its land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
force, a key facet of Cold War nuclear policy. Retiring the
ICBMs would save considerable costs, but it isn't only
budgets that would benefit. These missiles are some of the
most dangerous weapons in the world. They could even trigger
an accidental nuclear war.
If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route
to the United States, the president would have to consider
launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them;
once they are launched, they cannot be recalled. The
president would have less than 30 minutes to make that
terrible decision.
This is not an academic concern. While the probability of
an accidental launch is low, human and machine errors do
occur. I experienced a false alarm nearly 40 years ago, when
I was under secretary of defense for research and
engineering. I was awakened in the middle of the night and
told that some Defense Department computers were showing 200
ICBMs on the way from the Soviet Union. For one horrifying
moment I thought it was the end of civilization. Then the
general on the phone explained that it was a false alarm. He
was calling to see if I could help him determine what had
gone wrong with the computer.
During the Cold War, the United States relied on ICBMs
because they provided accuracy that was not then achievable
by submarine-launched missiles or bombers. They also provided
an insurance policy in case America's nuclear submarine force
was disabled. That's not necessary anymore. Today, the United
States' submarine and bomber forces are highly accurate, and
we have enough confidence in their security that we do not
need an additional insurance policy - especially one that is
so expensive and open to error.
As part of the updates to America's nuclear arsenal, the
government is also planning to replace nuclear-armed
submarines and bombers. If we assume that the Defense
Department is critically analyzing the number of systems
needed, this makes far more sense than replacing ICBMs. The
submarine force alone is sufficient to deter our enemies and
will be for the foreseeable future. But as technology
advances, we have to recognize the possibility of new threats
to submarines, especially cyberattack and detection by swarms
of drones. The new submarine program should put a special
emphasis on improvements to deal with these potential
threats, assuring the survivability of the fleet for decades
to come.
The new stealth bomber will provide a backup to
submarines. This is not likely to be necessary, but the
bomber force is a good insurance policy. The new bomber would
be capable of carrying out either conventional or nuclear
missions. But the development of new air-launched nuclear
cruise missiles, which has been proposed, is unnecessary and
destabilizing. We can maintain an effective bomber force
without a nuclear cruise missile.
Instead of overinvesting in nuclear weapons and
encouraging a new arms race, the United States should build
only the levels needed for deterrence. We should encourage
Russia to do the same. But even if it does not, our levels of
nuclear forces should be determined by what we actually need,
not by a misguided desire to match Moscow missile for
missile. If Russia decides to build more than it needs, its
economy will suffer, just as during the Cold War. ...
(William J. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 to
1997.)
"... Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations. ..."
"... No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does. ..."
Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most
important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with
all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies
of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war
and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for
his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and
with all nations.
No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously
as this essay does.
But for anyone who is the slightest bit aware of how the maniac imperialists have hijacked
the public means of persuasion for a generation to the detriment of countless foreign countries
as well as our own, the obsession with turning Trump into a cartoon character with joke "policies"
should sound an alarm.
No "politician" was ever going to buck this system. Bernie Sanders, fiery and committed though
he was, proved that. It was always going to take an over-sized personality with an over-sized
ego to withstand the shit storm that a demand for profound change would create, and some "incivility"
seems a small price to pay to break the vice grip of the status quo.
I, for one, have no intention of squandering this opportunity to throw sand in the gears. There
has never been a third candidate allowed to plead their case in a presidential "debate" since
Ross Perot threw a scare into TPTB in 1992. Should clinton manage to pull this one out, the lesson
of Trump will be learned, and we may not be "given" the opportunity to choose an "outsider" again
for a very long time. It's worth taking a minute to separate the message from the messenger.
"... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
"... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
A good friend passed along an
article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely
Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible
- even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that
America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends
roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.
Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the
Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing
an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from
the sales of weaponry to the army.
As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said:
War is a racket
. Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity.
In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile,
the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.
But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North
Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia?
North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:
#1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler
all learned that lesson the hard way).
#2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract
the people from their parlous existence.
#3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America,
at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would
be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore
needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers
their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.
We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or
artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated
versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion
on the shiny new and
under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy,
yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.
The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much
more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.
Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are
ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and
moral) bankruptcy.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years
at military and civilian schools and blogs at
Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted
from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
"... Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. ..."
"... "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace". ..."
"... "serious political, economic and military responses" ..."
"... notwithstanding ..."
"... The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered, "Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response". That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential in the present era. ..."
"... The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st , "Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and reported that a Pentagon official had testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack". ..."
"... Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news' reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November 8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter. ..."
"... Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is. ..."
"... On Tuesday, June 14 th , NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V "collective defense" provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. ..."
"... NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia, if the US government so decides. ..."
"... And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly. ..."
"... "neoconservative" ..."
"... Hillary is now the neoconservatives' candidate . (And she's also the close friend of many of them, and hired and promoted many of them at her State Department .) If she becomes the next President, then we might end up having the most neoconservative (i.e., military-industrial-complex-run) government ever. This would be terrific for America's weapons-makers, but it very possibly would be horrific for everybody else. That's the worst lobby of all, to run the country . (And, as that link there shows, Clinton has received over five times as much money from it as has her Republican opponent.) ..."
"... George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already been leaked in one way or another), and the Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already a serious nuclear confrontation . ..."
Hillary Clinton, on September 19th, was endorsed for President, by the most historically important,
intelligent, and dangerous, Republican of modern times.
She was endorsed then by the person who in 1990 cunningly engineered the end of the Soviet Union
and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance in such a way as
to continue the West's war against Russia so as to conquer Russia gradually for the owners of
US international corporations. The person, who kept his plan secret even from his closest advisors,
until the night of 24 February 1990, when he told them that what he had previously instructed them
to tell Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the West's future military intentions about Russia if
the USSR were to end, was actually a lie.
He also told them that they were henceforth to proceed forward on the basis that the residual
stump of the former Soviet Union, Russia, will instead be treated as if it still is an enemy-nation,
and that the fundamental aim of the Western alliance will then remain: to conquer Russia (notwithstanding
the end of the USSR, of its communism, and of its military alliances) - that the Cold War is to end
only on the Russian side, not at all, really, on the Western side. (All of that is documented from
the historical record, at that linked-to article.)
This person was the former Director of the US CIA, born US aristocrat, and committed champion
of US conquest of the entire world, the President of the United States at the time (1990):
George Herbert Walker Bush .
He informed the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend - as she posted
it, apparently ecstatically, on September 19th, to her facebook page after personally having just
met with Mr. Bush - "The President told me he's voting for Hillary!!" She then confirmed this to
Politico the same day, which headlined promptly,
"George H.W. Bush to Vote for Hillary" .
G.H.W. Bush is an insider's insider: he would not do this if he felt that Hillary Clinton wouldn't
carry forward his plan (
which has been adhered-to by each of the US Presidents after him ), and if he felt that Donald
Trump - Bush's own successor now as the Republican US candidate for President - would not carry it
forward. (This was his most important and history-shaping decision during his entire Presidency,
and therefore it's understandable now that he would be willing even to cross Party-lines on his Presidential
ballot in order to have it followed-through to its ultimate conclusion.)
What indications exist publicly, that she will carry it forward? Hillary Clinton has already publicly
stated (though tactfully, so that the US press could ignore it) her intention to push things up to
and beyond the nuclear brink, with regard to Russia:
Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election
systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight
to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will
treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political,
economic and military responses.
Russia denies that it did any such thing, but
the US even taps the phone conversations of Angela Merkel and other US allies ; and, of course,
the US and Russia routinely hack into each others' email and other communications; so, even if Russia
did what Clinton says, then to call it "like any other attack" against the United States and to threaten
to answer it with "military responses", would itself be historically unprecedented - which is what
Hillary Clinton is promising to do.
Historically unprecedented, like nuclear war itself would be. And she was saying this in the context
of her alleging that Russia had "attacked" the DNC (Democratic National Committee), and she as President
might "attack" back, perhaps even with "military responses". This was not an off-the-cuff remark
from her - it was her prepared text in a speech. She said it though, for example, on 26 October 2013,
Britain's Telegraph had headlined,
"US 'operates 80 listening posts worldwide, 19 in Europe, and snooped on Merkel mobile 2002-2013'
: US intelligence targeted Angela Merkel's phone from 2002 to 2013, according to new eavesdropping
leaks".
But now, this tapping against Merkel would, according to Hillary Clinton's logic (unless she intends
it to apply only by the United States against Russia), constitute reason for Germany (and
34 other nations ) to go to war against the United States.
Clinton also said there: "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia,
China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a
military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice
across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace".
She also said that the sequester agreement between the Congress and the President must end, because
US military spending should not be limited: "I am all for cutting the fat out of the budget and making
sure we stretch our dollars But we cannot impose arbitrary limits on something as important as our
military. That makes no sense at all. The sequester makes our country less secure. Let's end it and
get a budget deal that supports America's military". She wasn't opposing "arbitrary limits" on non-military
spending; she implied that that's not "as important as our military".
She was clear: this is a wartime US, not a peacetime nation; we're already at war, in her view;
and therefore continued unlimited cost-overruns to Lockheed Martin etc. need to be accepted, not
limited (by "arbitrary limits" or otherwise). She favors "cutting the fat out of the budget" for
healthcare, education, subsidies to the poor, environmental protection, etc., but not for war, not
for this war. A more bellicose speech, especially against "threats from states like Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS", all equating "states"
such as Russia and China, with "terrorist networks like ISIS", could hardly be imagined - as if Russia
and China are anything like jihadist organizations, and are hostile toward America, as such jihadist
groups are.
However, her threat to respond to an alleged "cyber attack" from Russia by "serious political,
economic and military responses" , is unprecedented, even from her. It was big news when she
said it, though virtually ignored by America's newsmedia.
The only US newsmedia to have picked up on Clinton's shocking threat were Republican-Party-oriented
ones, because the Democratic-Party and nonpartisan 'news' media in the US don't criticize a Democratic
nominee's neoconservatism - they hide it, or else find excuses for it (even after the Republican
neoconservative President George W. Bush's catastrophic and
lie-based neoconservative invasion of Iraq - then headed by the Moscow-friendly Saddam Hussein
- in 2003, which many Democratic office-holders, such as Hillary Clinton backed).
So, everything in today's USA 'news' media is favorable toward neoconservatism - it's now the
"Establishment" foreign policy, established notwithstanding the catastrophic Iraq-invasion,
from which America's 'news' media have evidently learned nothing whatsoever (because they're essentially
unchanged and committed to the same aristocracy as has long controlled them).
However, now that the Republican Party's Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, is openly critical
of Hillary Clinton's and George W. Bush's neoconservatism, any Republican-oriented 'news' media that
support Trump's candidacy allows its 'journalists' to criticize Clinton's neoconservatism; and, so,
there were a few such critiques of this shocking statement from Clinton.
The Republican Party's "Daily Caller" headlined about this more directly than any other US 'news'
medium,
"Clinton Advocates Response To DNC Hack That Would Likely Bring On WWIII" , and reported, on
September 1st, that "Clinton's cavalier attitude toward going to war over cyber attacks seems to
contradict her assertion that she is the responsible voice on foreign policy in the current election".
The Republican Washington Times newspaper headlined
"Hillary Clinton: US will treat cyberattacks 'just like any other attack'" , and reported that
she would consider using the "military to respond to cyberattacks," but that her Republican opponent
had indicated he would instead use only cyber against cyber: "'I am a fan of the future, and cyber
is the future,' he said when asked by Time magazine during the Republican National Convention about
using cyberweapons". However, Trump was not asked there whether he would escalate from a cyber attack
to a physical one. Trump has many times said that having good relations with Russia would be a priority
if he becomes President. That would obviously be impossible if he (like Hillary) were to be seeking
a pretext for war against Russia.
The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered,
"Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile
cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself
also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response".
That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US
were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself
as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually
has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has
now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential
in the present era.
The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st ,
"Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and
reported that a Pentagon official had
testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When
determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad
range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction
of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national
security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack".
Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National
Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news'
reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November
8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter.
Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is
farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is.
As
the German Economic News article had noted, but only in passing: "Just a few months ago, US President
Barack Obama had laid the legal basis for this procedure and signed a decree that equates hacker
attacks with military attacks". However, this slightly overstated the degree to which Obama has advanced
"this procedure". On 1 April 2016 - and not as any April Fool's joke - techdirt had headlined
"President Obama Signs Executive Order Saying That Now He's Going To Be Really Mad If He Catches
Someone Cyberattacking Us" and linked to the document, which techdirt noted was "allowing the
White House to issue sanctions on those 'engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities'".
The writer, Mike Masnick, continued, quite accurately: "To make this work, the President officially
declared foreign hacking to be a 'national emergency' (no, really) and basically said that if the
government decides that some foreign person is doing a bit too much hacking, the US government can
basically do all sorts of bad stuff to them, like seize anything they have in the US and block them
from coming to the US". What Hillary Clinton wants to add to this policy is physical, military, invasion,
for practices such as (if Russia becomes declared by the US President to have been behind the hacking
of the DNC) what is actually routine activity of the CIA, NSA, and, of course, of Russia's (and other
countries') intelligence operations.
It wasn't directly Obama's own action that led most powerfully up to Hillary Clinton's policy
on this, but instead NATO's recent action - and NATO has always been an extension of the US President,
it's his military club, and it authorizes him to go to war against any nation that it decides to
have been invaded by some non-member country (especially Russia or China - the Saudis, Qataris, and
other funders behind international jihadist attacks are institutionally prohibited from being considered
for invasion by NATO, because the US keeps those regimes in power, and those regimes are generally
the biggest purchasers of US weapons). I reported on this at The Saker's site, on 15 June 2016, headlining
"NATO Says It Might Now Have Grounds to Attack Russia" . That report opened:
On Tuesday, June 14 th ,
NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons
in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V
"collective defense"
provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to
strike back against the attacking country.
NATO is now alleging that because
Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone
in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her
unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business
that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and
would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense
clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia,
if the US government so decides.
So, Obama is using NATO to set the groundwork for Hillary Clinton's policy as (he hopes) America's
next President. Meanwhile, Obama's public rhetoric on the matter is far more modest, and less scary.
It's sane-sounding falsehoods. At the end of the G-20 Summit in Beijing, he held a
press conference September
5th (VIDEO at this link) , in which he was asked specifically (3:15) "Q: On the cyber front,
do you think Russia is trying to influence the US election?" and he went into a lengthy statement,
insulting Putin and saying (until 6:40 on the video) why Obama is superior to Putin on the Syrian
war, and then (until 8:07 in the video) blaming Putin for, what is actually, the refusal of the Ukrainian
parliament or Rada to approve the federalization of Ukraine that's stated in the Minsk agreement
as being a prerequisite to direct talks being held between the Donbass residents and
the Obama-installed regime
in Kiev that's been
trying to exterminate the residents of Donbass . Then (8:07 in the video), Obama got around to
the reporter's question:
And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific
investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with
cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving
into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got
more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the
cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the
past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly.
He is a far more effective deceiver than is his intended successor, but Hillary's goals and his,
have always been the same: achieving what the US aristocracy want. Whereas she operates with a sledgehammer,
he
operates with a scalpel . And he hopes to hand this operation off to her on 20 January 2017.
This is what Hillary's statement that "the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any
other attack" is reflecting: it's reflecting that the US will, if she becomes President, be actively
seeking an excuse to invade Russia. The Obama-mask will then be off.
If this turns out to be the case, then it will be raw control of the US Government by the
military-industrial complex, which includes the arms-makers plus the universities . It's the
owners - the aristocrats - plus their servants; and at least 90% of the military-industrial complex
support Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Like her, they are all demanding that the sequester be ended
and that any future efforts to reduce the US Government's debts must come from cutting expenditures
for healthcare, education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, and expenditures
on the poor; no cuts (but only increases) for the military. This is based on the conservative theory,
that the last thing to cut in government is the military.
George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already
been leaked in one way or another), and
the
Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will
it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already
a serious nuclear confrontation .
"... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
"... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
A good friend passed along an
article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely
Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible
- even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that
America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends
roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.
Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the
Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing
an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from
the sales of weaponry to the army.
As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said:
War is a racket
. Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity.
In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile,
the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.
But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North
Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia?
North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:
#1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler
all learned that lesson the hard way).
#2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract
the people from their parlous existence.
#3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America,
at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would
be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore
needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers
their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.
We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or
artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated
versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion
on the shiny new and
under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy,
yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.
The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much
more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.
Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are
ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and
moral) bankruptcy.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years
at military and civilian schools and blogs at
Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted
from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
Just watched Samantha Powers speak at the emergency UN security counsel meeting on Syria, how
she managed to keep a straight face is completely beyond me.
Basically Russia needs to take responsibility for its actions in Syria and the war would be
over if those damn Russians would GTFO and quit disrupting the US and GCC regime change operations.
It appears everything would be going swimmingly if Russia would just leave the "rebels" alone
and let the US turn Syria into Libya, I mean is that so much to ask for? /S
The people Obama has chosen to represent him are almost all fanatics. Samantha Power and Ash
Carter stand out as true psychopaths. Carter actually openly defied Obama on the Syria ceasefire.
Robert Parry has an excellent piece out today on the
rush to judgment about the attack on the humanitarian convoy.
It has been particularly infuriating to see the Chanel-suited Berkeley types be the ones to
embrace imperial fascist war-making with such glee.
I happened to recognize Susan Rice travelling sans bodyguard with her girlfriend at the airport
in Chiang Mai Thailand and had a delicious time giving her a full piece of my mind. Unedited truth
to power with nowhere to hide, she reacted with a glaze that said "you are just an idiot peon"
but I could see she was shaken.
US started Ukraine civil war. War in Donbass continues
It has been over a year of blood, tears and destruction in Ukraine especially in SE Ukraine. The
new country now called Novorossia, has been fighting the puppet government in Kiev, USA who is committing
genocide in the Donbass region. America's new addition to its Empire is funded with billions and
millions supported by NATO and other mercenaries. Yet, Kiev still cannot complete its mission the
US trained it for. Oleg Tsarov warned about the impish activities the US was performing before the
protests began in Kiev. America started the war in Ukraine but like Goliath was slain by little David.
US Started Ukraine Civil War *PROOF* Nov 20, 2013
Oleg Tsarov, who was then the People's Deputy of Ukraine, talks about US preparations for civil
war in Ukraine, November 2013 in Kiev parliament. Major protests began the day after his speech.
You can hear the paid protesters chanting "Ukraine" in the background trying to keep him from speaking
the truth. Later, April 14, 2014, Oleg was beaten by a mob when he was running for president but
fortunately survived. His face was badly beaten as shown here. Remember, his speech was the day before
the Maidan Protests. See the Timeline. In his speech he said:
"...activists of the organization 'Volya' turned to me providing clear evidence that within our
territory with support and direct participation of the US EMBASSY (in Kiev) the 'Tech Camp' project
is realized under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.
The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility of the US ambassador to Ukraine
Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the organization 'Volya'. I have learned they succeeded
to access the facilities of 'Tech Camp' disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise,
briefings on the peculiarities of modern media were held. AMERICAN instructors explained how social
networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well
as to activate protest potential to provoke violent unrest in the territory of Ukraine; radicalization
of the population triggering infighting.
American instructors presented examples of successful use of social networks used to organize
protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Recent conference took place Nov 14-15, 2013, in the heart
of Kiev in the Embassy of the United States of America!
Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy which organize the 'Tech Camp' conferences
misuse their diplomatic mission? UN resolution of December 21, 1965 regulates inadmissibility of
interference in the internal affairs of a state to protect its independence and its sovereignty in
accordance with paragraphs 1,2 and 5. I ask you to consider this as an official supplication to pursue
an investigation of this case."
Well, no investigation was ever made especially by the "land of the free". Vladimir Putin has
asked the UN for help but they drag their feet. The US embassies have caused more damage than the
Soviet Union has ever done. In the video, we can see Oleg and others knew about America's interference
in Ukraine affairs. He wanted to stop the civil war and courageously ran for president to stop the
impending bloodshed. Thousands of deaths could have been avoided if people had listened to him. He
could not fight the tide of billions of dollars from Obama and the US Congress. The Nazis in Kiev
had their way while Poroshenko sent men to their deaths. What a waste into a whirlpool of misery.
Obama and Poroshenko told the army they were going to fight terrorists. The "terrorists" were
innocent civilians. Kiev POW's were later paraded in front of the bombarded people as they got a
dose of REALITY. If only Obama or Poroshenko had told them the truth that they were bombing civilians
they thought. The Ukrainian army is full of city boys who are inexperienced, fighting in unknown
territory. The Novorossia militia is filled with coal miners and other blue collar workers with many
who have had combat experience in Chechnya or older men with experience from the Soviet-Afghanistan
war.
The militia has seen their children, wives, Mothers, Fathers, grandparents and close friends killed
but their faith, as this touching video shows, helps them defend their land. The Ukrainian army was
drafted and sent by seedy Obama and Poroshenko under the penalty of 5 yrs in jail if they did not
fight. If you feel sorry for them as POW's then I hope you see the bodies or graves of the thousands
of civilians who were killed by them. It is a tragedy for everyone involved. Even for Soros, Obama,
Poroshenko, Kerry, Nuland, members of US Congress who approved this, the Nazis in Kiev, all will
suffer far worse on Judgment Day unless they repent.
The civil war continues in Ukraine but despite Kiev's effort to mask the number of their dead
soldiers and POW's, Novorossia continues victory after victory on the battlefield. Ukraine army focuses
on shelling civilians while Novorossia kills Kiev's soldiers or captures them. Sometimes they are
returned to their Mothers as seen in this film.
Donetsk Republic Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko from Novorossia argues with Kiev army officer
in this powerful video. He said that the Kiev army succumbed to the coup:
"To give away our own country to be looted by Americans and other European countries"
That video is by Graham Phillips who does the job that the impotent lame stream media won't do
in America. Bravo Graham! Many thanks to Kazzura for her translation of most of the videos.
Notice in the West the so called journalists are nowhere to be found on the battlefield in Ukraine
as this man was here. I am certainly not addressing the media like CNN, FOX, CBS and the other court
jesters who are paid clowns in the freak show called "US government". They dare tell America lies
about the war. I would force them to dig the graves of the dead. How quickly the mainstream media
goose steps in unison blaming Russia as Hitler did. Showing them the truth would be like showing
a burnt building to a pyromaniac. The US media is in the business of making money not telling the
truth. Peace and truth don't make billions of dollars they say. Were they bribed or are they true
liars? "The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe
anyone else." - George Bernard Shaw
Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was back in the news recently. In her efforts to support the US
program against "Russia Today". "Noodle Head Nuland" belittled RT by saying "RT's tiny, tiny audience
in the United States". Remember her? The Benghazi gal was first talking about Democracy in Ukraine
with Chevron. Their version of "democracy and freedom" means war to the rest of the world. She was
seen handing out food to protesters and police in Kiev. How nice she is sounding so sweet and so
kind. She was later caught on tape saying "Fuck the EU" when discussing the setup of the Ukraine
government. Later she was grilled by Republican Dana Rohrabacher where she admitted there were Nazis
on Maidan. Yeah, I really trust that evil witch who learned her craft from Hillary.
It is obvious to the world, but not to the West, that Kiev was overthrown by the US and EU. Although
the US propaganda blames Russia for everything the OSCE has already disproven their claims. We wanted
to show in our main video that Kiev was actually warned before Pandora's Box was opened. The blame
is clearly on the US as instigators. They sowed the devil's seed.
Nevertheless, those who were deceived by the US or went along with the evil knowingly are also
to blame and bear the responsibility of misleading Ukraine. Kiev has now become the newest suffering
colony in America's empire. The only real "Hope and Change" for the people of Donbass is fighting
against Obama's tyranny and becoming the independent country of Novorossia. "Let Freedom Ring!" America
has forgotten its meaning.
Ukrainian Interior Ministry forces ATO Main news of recent days: an operation to encircle
Donetsk is nearly complete!
This radically changes the entire operational environment at the front. Let's already stop hiding
behind a fig leaf is an abbreviation of ATU and will be referred to as a war-torn, and advanced-front.
Many people ask how the war, which, by its type refers to the type of maneuver, formed wheel built?
After all, in the civil wars there is no front line. What do the schemes that appear on the Internet,
which clearly outline the front line?
First, the schemes are not reflected front and border control zones. Please note that the scheme
is not solid and dotted line .
Secondly, in the civil wars of the twentieth century in key areas formed a solid front.
Third, in these days we are recognizing a century of the First World War. This grand massacre
marked by the fact that the war for the first time in human history has become a purely positional.
On the western front rows of trenches stretched linear continuum from the North Sea to Switzerland.
And before the war were maneuverable. However, the basic principles of the strategy work as a maneuver,
and as the positional constructions. Therefore the environment in Donetsk - is now a decisive factor
that will help determine the subsequent course of events.
1919 defeat of Denikin. Future Marshal Yegorov spends quite a front operation at significantly
discharged constructions than we are now seeing in the Donbas.
But the most accurate historical analogy of what is happening in the East of the country, is the
Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, a rehearsal for WWII.
Three months ago, when the ATO was just beginning, with Yuri Romanenko, we discussed what it will
be for operation from a military point of view, with what does it compare? Spain! - Even then we
came to this conclusion.
One side holds successive offensives against disparate unsaturated builds on the other hand, in
the end it all comes down to a struggle for basic megacities - Barcelona and Madrid in the years
1938-1939 and for the Donetsk and Lugansk in 2014. We see that during the Spanish Civil War also
called the control zone - fronts.
As then, leading the offensive side of the wire successive offensives in various sectors of the
front. General Franco did not immediately come to such a strategy. But, he quickly enough proved
its effectiveness.
The Spanish Civil War
Another connecting factor - and in Spain, and in the Donbass defensive side had and has the ability
to constantly replenish their strength. I mean the International Brigades in Spain and Russian mercenaries
in the Donbass. Just do not make direct analogies and remember Hemingway. Ideology, morality and
culture here is not the point, only comparison is the strategic and military experience.
Based on the study of the history of strategic decisions during the Spanish Civil War. The General
staff of Ukraine has abandoned an ambitious but totally inappropriate, in terms of strategy, the
plan of encirclement throughout the territory occupied by the enemy.
General Staff of Ukraine refused ambitious but completely wrong, in terms of strategy, plan the
environment throughout the territory To carry out such an operation is necessary to introduce martial
law and full mobilization. The economic crisis - Ukraine needs to live and work. The President of
Ukraine Petro Poroshenko demanded to find less radical solutions. The General staff was to develop
private operations against individual enemy factions. And immediately came to fruition!
Today, we are seeing a decline IAF combat capability, as they are forced to operate in disparate
groups. The actions of terrorists is completely dictated by the operational environment. Given the
fact that the strategic initiative is fully on the side of the APU, the actions of illegal armed
groups cropped, are predictable and can be controlled. While the IAF will not solve the problems
with communications around Donetsk, they have no opportunity for meaningful operations on other sites.
Maneuver warfare strategy can be compared to the battle in zero gravity, when one of the opponents,
getting zubodrobilny kick gets a chance to continue the fight, that only lasts with some kind of
support. In our case, this leg is large metropolitan areas. Having lost the strategic initiative,
the IAF will be forced to pull their main forces in the Donetsk and Lugansk, allowing the APU, if
necessary, to conduct the operation on the closure of the border with Russia. Everything is good
in its season!
"... Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the public purse. They have raised over £160,000 to date so the story is not yet over. ..."
"... Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015. ..."
"... The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions. The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever". ..."
"... The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of Iraq and region, is staggering. ..."
The Chilcot report went further than many expected in condemning Tony Blair's
role in the invasion of Iraq. As Judith Orr says, it also reinforced the need
to be vigilant against all warmongers.
It took 12 days for the Chilcot report on the Iraq war to be read aloud non-stop
at the Edinburgh Festival event last month. The 2.6 million words of the report
were not the whitewash some had feared. In fact they were a confirmation of
what so many of those who protested against the war at the time said.
There were no lawyers on the Chilcot panel; this inquiry was never going
to call for charges against chief British warmonger Tony Blair. But families
of soldiers killed in the war are using the evidence brought forward in the
report to pursue a legal case against him. Because, although he didn't take
a line on the legality of the war, Chilcot criticised the process Blair drove
through to declare that invasion was legal: "We have, however, concluded that
the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK
military action were far from satisfactory."
As human rights lawyer Philippe Sands pointed out, "'Far from satisfactory'
is a career-ending phrase in mandarin-speak, a large boot put in with considerable
force."
Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair
to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the
public purse. They have raised over £160,000 to date so the story is not yet
over.
Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot
Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that
day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press
conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central
to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing
for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015.
The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the
establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq
despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions.
The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in
February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had
already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever".
The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of
Iraq and region, is staggering.
(theintercept.com)
94
Posted
by manishs
on Monday September 12, 2016 @04:00PM
from the
truth-is-out-there
dept.
The Intercept has today published
200-page documents revealing details about Harris
Corp's Stingray surveillance device
, which has
been one of the closely guarded secrets in law
enforcement for more than 15 years. The firm, in
collaboration with police clients across the U.S.
have "fought" to keep information about the mobile
phone-monitoring boxes from the public against which
they are used. The publication reports that the
surveillance equipment carries a price tag in the
"low six figures." From the report:
The San
Bernardino Sheriff's Department alone has snooped
via Stingray, sans warrant, over 300 times. Richard
Tynan, a technologist with Privacy International,
told The Intercept that the "manuals released today
offer the
most up-to-date view on the operation of
"
Stingrays and similar cellular surveillance devices,
with powerful capabilities that threaten civil
liberties, communications infrastructure, and
potentially national security. He noted that the
documents show the "Stingray II" device can
impersonate four cellular communications towers at
once, monitoring up to four cellular provider
networks simultaneously, and with an add-on can
operate on so-called 2G, 3G, and 4G networks
simultaneously.
Clinton is neither well-liked nor trusted. She is just a marionette promoted
by neocon cabal. Sanders team has a point that Clinton is like the job candidate
wit the impressive resume who sounds great on paper, but then when you meet her
in person, you realize she's not he right person for the job.
Notable quotes:
"... She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous, reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted. ..."
"... And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she is a radical neoconservative at heart. ..."
"... She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look for missions" that NATO will support ..."
"... She vows to go around looking for new military adventures. ..."
"... Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure, she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong. That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy. ..."
"... She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that they will be a completely different person once in office then they have been in 40 years is the definition of insanity. ..."
"... it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost. ..."
"... Clinton did herself no favors in the debate, drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. ..."
"... They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are coming for us" he means Wall Street. ..."
"... "Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit, but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's."" That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to experience again. ..."
"... Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions. She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState? Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications and personality. ..."
... Clinton sowed suspicion again, refusing to cough up her Wall Street speech
transcripts.
... ... ...
Hillary alternately tried to blame and hug the men in her life, divvying
up credit in a self-serving way.
After showing some remorse for the 1994 crime bill, saying it had had "unintended"
consequences, she stressed that her husband "was the president who actually
signed it." On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's." And
on her desire to train and arm Syrian rebels, she recalled, "The president said
no."
But she wrapped herself in President Obama's record on climate change and,
when criticized on her "super PACs," said, well, Obama did it, too.
Sanders accused her of pandering to Israel after she said that "if Yasir
Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David," there would have been a Palestinian
state for 15 years.
Bernie is right that Hillary's judgment has often been faulty.
She has shown an unwillingness to be introspective and learn from her mistakes.
From health care to Iraq to the email server, she only apologizes at the point
of a gun. And even then, she leaves the impression that she is merely sorry
to be facing criticism, not that she miscalculated in the first place.
... ... ...
She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic
emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous,
reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration
put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story Wouldn't it be a relief to
people if Hillary just acknowledged some mistakes?
... ... ...
Clinton accused Sanders of not doing his homework on how he would break up
the banks. And she is the queen of homework, always impressively well versed
in meetings. But that is what makes her failure to read the National Intelligence
Estimate that raised doubts about whether Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. so
egregious.
P. Greenberg El Cerrito, CA
Maureen Dowd fundamentally misunderstands Hillary Clinton's foreign policy
failings. When it comes to Libya, Clinton does not merely need to apologize
for getting distracted by other global issues and "taking her eye off the
ball". The decision to go in was wrong, not the failure to follow through.
And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The
questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates
and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the
Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she
is a radical neoconservative at heart.
Clinton continues to adhere to the neoconservative approach to foreign
policy. Her choice of words during the Brooklyn debate were significant.
She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look
for missions" that NATO will support. That says it all. She vows
to go around looking for new military adventures.
Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure,
she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong.
That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is
that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic
and foreign policy.
And please Maureen, stop denigrating Bernie Sanders with pejorative adjectives
and vague accusations. He has held elective office for 35 years, showing
leadership and good judgment and good values.
Brett Morris California,
She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination
and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly
run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who
called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she
can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real
Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that
they will be a completely different person once in office then they have
been in 40 years is the definition of insanity.
That said, of course she is better than the republicans. But she is the
worst possible candidate for the Democratic Party, especially in this era
where we have a serious opportunity to turn away from Reagan's Overton Window.
And right now we actually have a candidate available who represents our
best ideas. Can't we just ditch her while we have the chance? If she gets
elected, more war is absolutely guaranteed. A one-term Presidency is also
highly likely, because nobody will be on her side. She loses trust and support
the more she exposes herself, every time.
Paul Long island
I agree when you say of Hillary Clinton, "She has shown an unwillingness
to be introspective and learn from her mistakes." That is only part of her
problem because her judgment seems always wrong, despite all the "listening
tours," whether it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her
think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's
most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches
she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not
ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for
it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost.
To say she's "sorry" would only confirm her consistently bad judgment since
she has so much to be sorry about. So, what we have instead is a very "sorry"
candidate who, despite her resume and establishment backing, is having immense
trouble overcoming "a choleric 74-year-old democratic socialist" and will
have an even harder time if she's the Democratic nominee in November.
Rima Regas is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA
Hillary isn't sorry. Bill is definitely not sorry. Bernie Sanders isn't
a senator with few accomplishments.
Hillary isn't sorry about anything. She hasn't apologized for the superpredator
comment. Saying she wouldn't say it now is hardly an apology and during
Thursday's debate, she talked about her husband apologizing for it instead
of talking about herself (since that was what she was being asked to do),
when Bill has yet to apologize. (Clips here: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bw) If
anything, he doubled down on defending her and himself. When it comes to
mass-incarceration, they both exhibit a kind of moral absenteeism. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2b7
On money in politics, Clinton did herself no favors in the debate,
drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility
of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz was no help to her this week when in an answer, she included
big money in the "Big Tent" that the democratic party is supposed to be.
http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bO
During his entire tenure in both houses of Congress, Sanders has distinguished
himself as one who can work with the other side, propose legislation gets
things done through amendments. There is a yuuuge difference in approach
between Clinton and Sanders and the willingness to trust Sanders over Clinton.
When the choice in front of Americans becomes Trump versus Clinton or Sanders,
Sanders wins by a wider margin. Sanders will take more from Trump.
Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich
So Bill claimed Bernie supporters think, "Just shoot every third person
on Wall Street and everything will be fine."
They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration
displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are
coming for us" he means Wall Street.
"Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit,
but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya,
she noted that "the decision was the president's.""
That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to
experience again.
That is important, because she still wants to sink us deeper into it.
Her own adviser on this says, Hillary "does not see the Libya intervention
as a failure, but as a work in progress."
"Like other decisions, it was put through a political filter and a paranoid
mind-set." That is the essence of what makes Hillary so dangerous in a responsible
office. From Iraq in the beginning to Libya now, the homework lady did all
her work and then saw the wrong things and got it wrong.
Joe Pike Gotham City
Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever
sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions.
She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles
alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState?
Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to
name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications
and personality.
"... Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country, but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial (and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere constitutes abdication of "leadership." ..."
"... Everyone is familiar with Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago, and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise. ..."
"... unfortunately pro-war dead-enders continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription that they made in the past. ..."
Andrew Bacevich has written an excellent
article on the need to end our ongoing "war for the Greater Middle East."
This part jumped out at me in connection with the debate over the
Libyan war:
A particular campaign that goes awry [bold mine-DL]
like Somalia or Iraq or Libya may attract passing attention, but
never the context in which that campaign was undertaken [bold mine-DL].
We can be certain that the election of 2016 will be no different.
It is almost never mentioned now, so it is easy to forget that many Libyan
war supporters initially argued for intervention in order to save the "Arab
Spring." Their idea was that the U.S. and its allies could discourage other
regimes from forcibly putting down protests by siding with the opposition in
Libya, and that if the U.S. didn't do this it would "signal" dictators that
they could crush protests with impunity. This never made sense at the time.
Other regimes would have to believe that the U.S. would consistently side with
their opponents, and there was never any chance of that happening. If it sent
any message to them, the intervention in Libya sent other regimes a very different
message: don't let yourself be internationally isolated like Gaddafi, and you
won't suffer his fate. Another argument for the intervention was that it would
change the way the U.S. was perceived in the region for the better. That didn't
make sense, either, since Western intervention in Libya wasn't popular in most
countries there, and even if it had been it wouldn't change the fact that the
U.S. was pursuing many other policies hated by people throughout the region.
It was on the foundation of shoddy arguments such as these that the case for
war in Libya was built.
Bacevich is right that many critics fault specific interventions for their
failings without questioning the larger assumptions about the U.S. role in the
region that led to those wars. Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq
war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of
preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states
more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault
Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but
it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong
or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world
and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack
other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country,
but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere
in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial
(and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere
constitutes abdication of "leadership."
To make matters worse, every intervention always has a die-hard group of
dead-enders that will defend the rightness and success of their war no matter
what results it produces. They don't think the war they supported every really
went "awry" except when it was ended "too soon." Everyone is familiar with
Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war
had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing
that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is
somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to
own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil
war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended
mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war
supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the
country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to
acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions
of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions
about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still
the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago,
and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise.
That might not matter too much, but unfortunately pro-war dead-enders
continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates
on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what
the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply
the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides
in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the
failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were
failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription
that they made in the past.
Remember when Larry Lindsey was fired as Bush's economic advisor when he
suggested
that the costs could be as high as $200 billion?
Good times, but at this point the Dems own it as much as the GOP.
"... In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast Jeb would be too obvious. ..."
"... "There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president." ..."
"... Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different, deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every other candidate. ..."
"... Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal. ..."
"... Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq. ..."
"... I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican or Democratic establishment schmuck. ..."
"... I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone. ..."
"... Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism, which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago." ..."
"... After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly, as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers. ..."
"... Incidentally, where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit? ..."
"... Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the American Establishment - as set out in the Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean, terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling the world. ..."
"... Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out, with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT." ..."
"... Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. ..."
"... Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy: ..."
"... In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well. ..."
"... As president she's da bomb! ..."
"... Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around comes around. ..."
"... A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of all that is wrong with America today. ..."
"... I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word "Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used. We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies grand? ..."
"... Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. ..."
"... HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type, the 'Third Way Up Your Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and environmental protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies. ..."
"... And Victoria Nuland indicates that she agrees with her husband Robert Kagan's criticism of Obama's foreign policy. ..."
"... Would it be safe to say Hillary's White Trash ? ..."
"... There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy. ..."
"... 'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind. ..."
"... I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it. ..."
"... Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan, even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan. ..."
"... He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni" insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine. ..."
"... It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire. If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more. ..."
"... Economic policy to vote on? Are you joking? Whichever party we elect we get Neoliberalism anyway. ..."
"... "That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you? ..."
Here is the reason why Hillary Clinton should never ever become President
of the United States.
A (sympathetic) New York Times profile of neocon Robert Kagan has
this on Clinton II:
But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his "mainstream" view of
American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists
are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently
attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the
guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy
heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.
"I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Mr. Kagan said,
adding that the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach "could
theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table" if elected president.
"If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added,
"it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly
her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it
something else."
Want more wars with terrible outcomes and no winner at all? Vote the neocon's
vessel, Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, by the way, is also
a coward,
unprincipled and
greedy. Her achievements as Secretary of State were about zero. Why would
anyone vote for her?
Posted by b on June 16, 2014 at 09:09 AM |
Permalink
I'm afraid you focus too much on elections that have no meaning. It seems
we may be cornered into choosing between HR Clinton and Jeb Bush. The latter,
I'm sure, would earn equal praise from the Kagan clan. There is no prospect
of a non-interventionist president. There is no prospect of a president
that is not a Zionist stooge.
In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can
distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men
into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast
Jeb would be too obvious.
Personally, I don't think she is anyone to worry about gaining the office.
Too much hatred of her by most Americans, from her serial lying to her terrible
foreign policy, to her standing by bent dick, in her lust for power. She
will be backed by feminazis,homonazis and zionazis(Kagan).
Not enough devil worshippers in America,at least not yet,and I believe
Americans,from current events that our traitor MSM will be unable to counter
with their usual BS,that we are down the rabbit hole of idiotic intervention,and
we will end this nonsense,and return to worrying about America,not foreign
malevolent monsters like Israel.
Well,I can at least hope,it springs eternal.
"There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president."
Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who
might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote
anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more
wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different,
deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every
other candidate.
Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside
the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic
state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference
in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be
righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal.
I understand that some speak to how corrupt our institutions are but
there always seems to be a "feel-goodiness" - i.e., we can still fix it
all, boys and girls, if you all just clap your hands LOUDER!! - implicit
in their analyses/prescriptions when there should be nothing but anger,
fear and revulsion towards the fascist war criminal state that we live within.
Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of
his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is
looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that
the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq.
"There is no chance of a non-interventionist president"
I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a
Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending
to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican
or Democratic establishment schmuck.
I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and
I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful
as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to
put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone.
Great post, b. I saw the article and felt the same thing. While commentators
are right to say that the foreign policy of the U.S. remains largely untouched
regardless of which candidate or party wins the White House (which the NYT
piece does a fine job illustrating), I do think Hillary is the worst the
Democrats have to offer.
What I found amazing about the story is how neocons are now preening
about as if they have been vindicated:
Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism,
which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's
detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives
historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments
I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago."
After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly,
as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers.
Incidentally,
where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit?
Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid
rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid
genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the
American Establishment - as set out in the
Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean,
terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just
happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking
off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling
the world.
Yeah, I bet the apartheid genocidal state of Israel probably has just
NO IDEA about what's going on in Iraq what with their harrowing search -
read: collective punishment for the residents of the
illegally occupied territories - for the 3 missing boys who haven't
been ransomed or claimed to have been taken by anyone.
Wait a second...what if it was ISIS/L and NOT Hamas that "kidnapped"
the boys!!!Holy tie-in, Bat-Man!!!!
Then there would be NO WAY that what we're witnessing is the furthering
of the Yinon Plan because the apartheid genocidal Israelis would never instigate
false flag terror to further/distract from their own ends/agenda, would
they?
Nah.
A Qaeda-inspired group calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and
Syria - Palestine, West Bank claimed responsibility for the kidnappings,
saying it wanted to avenge Israel's killing of three of its group in
the Hebron area late last year and to try to free prisoners from Israeli
jails. The credibility of the claim was not immediately clear.
But clear enough for the Zionist mouthpiece of the NYT to print it, right?
Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally
insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily
Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest
moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out,
with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT."
Then he laughed. At her, not with her. She's a sick, intellectually lazy,
dumb, joke. America deserves her.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in
favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York
hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian
problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought
it was a regional problem. I could not have predicted, however,
the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq
and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state."
Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to
erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's
times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately
trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of
Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy:
In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned
columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united
Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar
partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an
Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up
as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in
a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well.
Peters's map, which ran in Armed Forces Journal, inspired conspiracy
theories about how this was America's real plan for remaking the Middle
East. But the reality is entirely different: One reason these maps have
remained strictly hypothetical, even amid regional turmoil, is that
the United States has a powerful interest in preserving the Sykes-Picot
status quo.
This is not because the existing borders are in any way ideal. Indeed,
there's a very good chance that a Middle East that was more politically
segregated by ethnicity and faith might become a more stable and harmonious
region in the long run.
My favorite part of the above column is that it references a previous
column from the Zionist NYT from last year in which a war criminal even
drew up the
new map of the ME!!
Oh, but that war criminal thought SYRIA was going to be the trigger that
allowed for the culmination of the Yinon Plan. Oops!
And then ALSO YESTERDAY in the
NYT everyone's favorite little war Establishment mouthpiece Nicholas
Kristoff had this to say:
The crucial step, and the one we should apply diplomatic pressure to
try to achieve, is for Maliki to step back and share power with Sunnis
while accepting decentralization of government.
If Maliki does all that, it may still be possible to save Iraq. Without
that, airstrikes would be a further waste in a land in which we've already
squandered far, far too much.
DECENTRALIZATION, huh? Why, Nicky, that sounds like what Putin has suggested
for Ukraine, huh? Shhhhhhhh
And of course Mr. Fuckhead Tom Friedman weighs in ALSO YESTERDAY in the
NYT with this:
THE disintegration of Iraq and Syria is upending an order that has defined
the Middle East for a century. It is a huge event, and we as a country
need to think very carefully about how to respond. Having just returned
from Iraq two weeks ago, my own thinking is guided by five principles,
and the first is that, in Iraq today, my enemy's enemy is my enemy.
Other than the Kurds, we have no friends in this fight. Neither Sunni
nor Shiite leaders spearheading the war in Iraq today share our values.
The ME is going to be split up inevitably: check
The US/Israel are JUST NOWHERE to be found: check
Thanks, Tom, you fucking war criminal scum!!!
To review:
Everyone in the Establishment - fake left, right, center, dove, hawk,
blah blah - says that it's just inevitable now that Iraq and the ME will
probably be broken up.
Everyone in the Establishment also agrees that NO ONE could see this
whole ISIS etc shitpile coming, right?
Anyone else get the feeling that this is a coordinated continuation of
the Zionist Plan for the Middle East?
Naahh. Nothing to see here, fuckers!!! Move along!!!!
She ties right in with the whole pink power agenda. She is the woMAN
version and can also be useful for the women=victims, but, no way for the
women/whore
women/victim/whore is quintessentially Pussy Riot
And if you criticize HC you are just a woman hater!
(you know like antisemitic)
Same as Obama- criticize him, you are just a racist
Shuts the complaints right off!
Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public
orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported
Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around
comes around.
A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there
is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews
account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and
shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering
Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of
all that is wrong with America today.
lysander @ 4: "There is no prospect of a president that is not a Zionist
stooge."
I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word
"Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used.
We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies
grand?
Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health
and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit
crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. I think her health
is the critical variable, as the PTB are going to make sure that the Republican
candidate will come out strongly for privatization of social security and
reversing the 19th amendment. Vote-rigging and gerrymandering will maintain
a sufficiently close election to preserve the simulacrum of a free election.
HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type,
the 'Third Way Up Your
Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and
environmental
protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies.
That she is a totally-disjointed Royal is clear in her 'dead broke' claim.
That she is a famous Hectorian, constantly checking which way public opinion
is flowing, then crafting
her confabulated dialogue as screed to her real intents, is well known.
Der Prevaricator.
What should be equally well known, if news got around, Hillary (and UKs
Milliband) grifted
Hamid Karzai $5 BILLION of Americans' last life savings, stolen from US
Humanitarian Aid
to Afghanistan, then made five trips to Kabul for no apparent purpose, before
announcing
that her $-35 MILLION 'dead broke' presidential campaign had been paid off
by 'anonymous
donors'. This is all public record; in the 2009 International Conference
on Afghanistan in
London, right in the conference speeches, framed as 'Karzai's demand', but
in fact, that
speech of Karzai's was written by US State Department. I read the drafts.
'Bicycling'.
Hillary soon had to fly back one more time and grift Karzai an emergency
$3.5 BILLION
theft, after he lost Americans' $5 BILLION while speculating in Dubai R/E
by looting
his Bank of Kabul. Her 'injection of capital' saved the bank from being
audited, and
no doubt saved all the Kaganites from an embarrassing and public episiotomy.
In the end, Hillary retired with a fortune of $50 MILLION, again announced
publicly, which
together with the $-35 MILLION campaign payoff in violation of all US election
regulations,
is exactly 1% of the $8.5 BILLION she grifted to Karzai. She's in the 'One
Percent Club'.
"It's a Great Big Club, ...and you ain't in it!" George 'The Man' Carlin
But who cares? I'll tell you. The Russian know about this grift, certainly
the Israelis
know about this grift, the Millibandits know, the London Karzais know, and
if G-d forbid,
Hillary became HRHOTUS, Americans will be blackmailed down to their underdrawers.
There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly
with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In
combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people
greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not
think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy.
"Well at the risk of being a smartass her achievements were negative,
the American hegemony is in worse condition because of her."
Because of her and it.
Dubhaltach gets it right, and as applied to events inclusive of and after
9-11-2001. The purported masterful seamless garment of conspiracy,
yet it weakened the US and helped get Israel whacked good by Hezbollah.
As for the unmentioned Saudi, it is of course impossible that Saudi could
outplay longterm both the US and Israel longterm.
Just as it was impossible Chalabi could outplay the neocons and help
win Iran the Iraq War. Who is playing catch up and who is
playing masterfully cohesive and unbeatable conspiracy?
Dubhaltach gets it right, the US will be pushed out of the Mideast and
Israel is longterm DOOMED.
Here is Obama in the very recent Remnick interview
"Obama said:
'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region
that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in
contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states
included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a
day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind.
I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark
colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with
Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for
all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it.
Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan,
even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan.
He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the
nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When
Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting
guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni"
insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine.
He just "sold" US foreign policy in a different target group, Hillary
will sell it to her target group, Jeb Bush to his.
It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire.
If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something
positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more.
"That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was
some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you?
the following is an excerpt from essay written by James at Winter Patriot:
"... Psychopaths are people without a conscience; without compassion
for others; without a sense of shame or guilt. The majority of people carry
within them the concern for others that evolution has instilled in us to
allow us to survive as groups. This is the evolutionary basis of the quality
of compassion. Compassion is not just a matter of virtue; it is a matter
of survival. Psychopaths do not have this concern for others and so are
a danger to the survival of the rest of us.
Psychopaths, as a homogeneous group, would not survive one or two generations
by themselves. They are motivated only by self interest and would exploit
each other till they ended up killing each other. Which gives one pause
for thought! They are parasites and need the rest of us to survive. In doing
so they compromise the survival of the whole species.
Psychopaths represent approximately between 1% and 20% of the population
in western countries depending on whose research you go by and also depending
on how broad a definition of the condition you adopt. It is generally held,
though, that there is a hard core of between 4-6% or so and maybe another
10 -15% of the population that is functionally psychopathic in that they
will exploit their fellow human being without hesitation.
The hard core are untreatable. They see nothing wrong with who or what
they are. The other 10-15% group may be persuaded to act differently in
a different environment or a different society. The second group act out
of a misguided strategy of survival. I'll concentrate on the hard core 5%
and the singular fact that must be borne in mind with them is that they
are incapable of change for the better. They cannot reform or be reformed.
And you can take that to the bank in every case! They must never be trusted.
Documented liars like those that populate the current Kiev regime
can be confidently assumed to be psychopaths from their behaviour and so
will never negotiate in good faith and will always renege on any deals they
make. The same can be said for the governments of the US and UK who back
them. Historically, they have never made a treaty that they did not subsequently
break."
James' essay is extremely informative wrt group psychopathy... some of
you may want to give it a read:
psychopath: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal
or violent social behavior.
an unstable and aggressive person. "schoolyard psychopaths will gather around
a fight to encourage the combatants"
Mina, now that I've looked up these links for you, I am confused myself!
Since a sociopath is less of a danger to the rest of us, I prefer to call
TPTB and their puppets psychopaths. Not your bad at all, apparently the
two are so similar as to there being difficulty telling them apart.
btw, I always enjoy your posts ~ not only do I get new info, but often
new sources... which is great. Thanks!
"... Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State ..."
"... The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home. ..."
Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the
Warfare State By Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons, and Naomi LaChance
HILLARY CLINTON IS meeting with a new national security "working group"
that is filled with an elite "who's who" of the military-industrial complex
and the security deep state.
The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the
troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror
profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy
will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes
active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at
home.
It's a story we've seen before in President Obama's early appointments.
In retrospect, analysts have pointed to the continuity in national security
and intelligence advisers as an early sign that despite his campaign rhetoric
Obama would end up building on - rather than tearing down - the often-extralegal,
Bush-Cheney counterterror regime. For instance, while Obama promised in
2008 to reform the NSA, its director was kept on and its reach continued
to grow.
Obama's most fateful decision may have been choosing former National
Counterterrorism Center Director John Brennan to be national security adviser,
despite Brennan's support of Bush's torture program. Brennan would go on
to run the president's drone program, lead the CIA, fight the Senate's torture
investigation, and then lie about searching Senate computers.
That backdrop is what makes Clinton's new list of advisers so significant.
It includes Gen. David Petraeus, the major architect of the 2007 Iraq
War troop surge, which brought 30,000 more troops to Iraq. Picking him indicates
at partiality to combative ideology. It also represents a return to good
standing for the general after he pled guilty to leaking notebooks full
of classified information to his lover, Paula Broadwell, and got off with
two years of probation and a fine. Petraeus currently works at the investment
firm KKR & Co.
Another notable member of Clinton's group is Michael Chertoff, a hardliner
who served as President George W. Bush's last secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, and who since leaving government in 2009 has helmed
a corporate consulting firm called the Chertoff Group that promotes security-industry
priorities. For example, in 2010, he gave dozens of media interviews touting
full-body scanners at airports while his firm was employed by a company
that produced body scanning machines. His firmalso employs a number of other
ex-security state officials, such as former CIA and NSA Director Michael
Hayden. It does not disclose a complete list of its clients - all of whom
now have a line of access to Clinton.
Many others on the list are open advocates of military escalation overseas.
Mike Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, endorsed Clinton last
month in a New York Times opinion piece that accused Trump of being an "unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation." The Times was criticized for not disclosing
his current employment by Beacon Global Strategies, a politically powerful
national-security consulting firm with strong links to Clinton. Three days
later, Morell told Charlie Rose in a PBS interview that the CIA should actively
assassinate Russians and Iranians in Syria.
During his time at the CIA, Morell was connected to some of the worst
scandals and intelligence failures of the Bush administration. In his book,
he apologizes for giving flawed intelligence to Colin Powell about Iraq's
supposed weapons of mass destruction, but defends the CIA torture program
as legal and ethical.
Jim Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander Europe on Clinton's
advisory group, told Fox News Radio in July, when he was being vetted by
Clinton as a possible vice presidential nominee, that "we have got to get
more aggressive going into Syria and Iraq and go after [ISIS] because if
we don't they're going to come to us. It's a pretty simple equation." He
said he would "encourage the president to take a more aggressive stance
against Iran, to increase our military forces in Iraq and Syria, and to
confront Vladmir Putin" over his moves in Crimea.
The New York Times reported in 2011 that Michael Vickers, a former Pentagon
official on Clinton's new list, led the use of drone strikes. He would grin
and tell his colleagues at meetings, "I just want to kill those guys."
Others on the list played a role in the targeted killing policies of
the Obama administration, including Chris Fussell, a top aide to Gen. Stanley
McChrystal, and now a partner with him at his lucrative consulting firm,
the McChrystal Group....
"... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
"... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
"... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
"... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
"... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
"... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
"... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
"... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
"... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
"... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
"... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
"... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
"... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
"... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
"... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
"... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
"... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
"... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
"... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
"... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
"... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
"... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
"... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
"... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
"... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
"... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
"... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
"... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
"... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
"... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
"... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
"... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
"... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
"... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
"... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
"... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
"... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
"... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
"... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
"... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
"... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
"... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
"... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call
it peace.
ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19
"Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's
for real.
2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict
in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been
considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness
and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live
translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548
30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash
of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened:
Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and
cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos
uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.
A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command
system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches
from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.
30.10.2015
Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried
out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General
Staff said Friday.
In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps,
and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate
said.
"In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public
after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene
was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity
of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the
country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said.
"The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.
Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried
to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow
statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We
are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes
to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and
other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and
destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.
After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to
diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish
alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare,
and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened
ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's
legacy!
Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52
Well said.
I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the
anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected
to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.
Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution.
Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as
the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear
day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.
Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28
Pete Piper
In brief;
The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies
US enemies.
... ... ...
midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35
When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian
lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said
they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how
utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy
via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments
section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots
on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers
lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama
Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send
in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder
the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars
the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing
governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth
to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing
ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's
foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.
SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03
We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and
power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off
their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.
The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.
This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged
idiot John McCain pulling the strings.
Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58
The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having
just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have
to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed
up by post disaster rationalisation....
whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is
little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated
disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to
show what a big John Wayne he is!!
DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56
There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling
countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy
will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually
unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule
of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a
nation of lies.
Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47
Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was
presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported
that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?
Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36
No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally
illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18
Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks
from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job
of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he
was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing
up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and
was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone
who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:
1. 8 Trillion to our debt
2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish
and English...10 x over.
4. War on Cops
5. War with China
6. Invasion from Central America
I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!
SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47
Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.
Forever Gone is all trust.
His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages
that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.
Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.
HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45
Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment
to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.
With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President
is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the
so-called US military-industrial complex.
Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US
military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years
M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled
him.
Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00
Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the
Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration
camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their
respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ...
all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone
has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.
USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command-
there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a
civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair...
a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting
at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in
tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space...
no doubt we shall see them here too.
All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later
will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force
of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a
state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .
Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while
recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists
are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !
I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free
of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the
west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS .
This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they
occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will
sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken
lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash
must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...
My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows
!) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets
via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just
solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge
with no mercy .
amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52
Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me
do it",
Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues
to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.
Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."
Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?
"What's your position on the Empire?"
"Oh, what Empire, you ask?"
"The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools
of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"
lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41
Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.
The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to
have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.
It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and
keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the
only win they care about.
What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money
we don't have.
Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26
Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are
fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will
he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian
airstrikes?
How stupid can a President get?
Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous
policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy
is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.
phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56
That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign
troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international
law all the time.
nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35
Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State
And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really
simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?
Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government
or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why
is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?
phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33
The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S.
was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel,
while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were
arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't
going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria.
The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused
a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to
oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.
amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31
Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which
he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is
a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America ---
as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his
role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?
Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48
Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before
dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even
among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate
leader?
Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41
Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided
Syria a la Germany after WW2.
TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36
"It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"
Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.
TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29
The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim
the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".
Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27
The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military
do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.
The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS
headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.
Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15
Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are
also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following
the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.
I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend
their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.
centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48
The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also
fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.
Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47
@Verbum Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became
insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?
Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds
corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being
invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military,
throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total
surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy,
and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have
laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.
gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46
ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos
in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...
ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21
So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to
support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination,
right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority
of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?
Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue
and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation
of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part
of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent
kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely
irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.
MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21
Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another
occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as
if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of
Syria.
gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19
Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped
out by Russia and the axis of resistance...
Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08
Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they
vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more
oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we
can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why?
The countries being bombed surely know.
Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50
You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade
Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized
by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain
this to the public, sadly.
Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that
has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.
Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but
Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is
supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President
Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are
NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and
more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.
By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.
oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36
Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU
reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination
..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama
obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill
however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia
war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the
sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations
iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen
on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in
syria and iraq
oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42
But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a
full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.
" For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they
may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin
told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."
Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its
allies Russia
Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian
and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32
Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this
scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29
Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the
police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these
actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev
during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously
at work ' stirring the pot.
Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24
Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and
Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This
is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been
90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.
Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys
being sent to Syria are possibly there as:
cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground
the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian
troops deployment/movement).
The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in
key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents
do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".
The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of
talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.
I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting
the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry,
war).
petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13
The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?
Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34
But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything
and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice
in their head is Cash Money.
lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34
It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the
Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally
controlled for their agenda.
This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started
from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and
all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.
US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the
right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang,
he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't
solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has
investment in it?
My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country
they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.
And Obama is their puppet.
Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30
Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises
and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything
he says anymore.
He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that
he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause
him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of
what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.
Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07
Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.
Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.
I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian
Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering
the consistency of their thoughts and actions.
Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...
Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28
There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic
and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something
critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit
and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war,
UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.
You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically,
WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?
MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03
ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against
our own mercenaries make sense???
I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually
is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed,
Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan
and Iraq... it goes on...
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58
"It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going
to turn the tide in any way."
Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for
a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian
airstrikes and Iranian man power.
Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its
foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This
is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those
countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements
with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different
groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking
about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!
Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57
Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil
sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?
templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51
IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious
interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international
agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of
everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example
in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although
there's not much difference in reality.
IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing
(Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies
the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major
escalation? Yes.
Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs
Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder
people are saying Armageddon.
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50
ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have
an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to
suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's
forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis,
Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most
and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that
be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.
How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok
and American boots bad?
The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya
and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are
doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their
own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability
in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations
in the region.
The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing
short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America
lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.
I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us
are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests
of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states,
beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard
working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.
In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance
of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep
one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02
Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes,
the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly
megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's
destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders
and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)
ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00
Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according
to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.
The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops
into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's
a War Crime by every standard
Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge
into insanity writ large.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55
To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly
appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the
so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused
and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty
bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...
There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand
rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation
prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...
BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52
China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to
an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.
See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.
Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.
RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30
Their Plan B is fucked !!
But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate
corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve
up Syria a sovereign country.
Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian
rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is
a sovereign country.
The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in
Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West,
do best.
Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering
neo-Nazi's.
In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.
weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25
War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and
trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society,
but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.
... ... ...
Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21
Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the
opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?
This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.
Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59
Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.
"Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty
over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle
of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how
large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia,
signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states
the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic agreed to respect one
another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian
principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and
to the prevailing world order.[1]"
foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41
As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such
as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance
of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.
If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.
foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31
Johnny Kent
The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission
or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for
'annexing Crimea...
Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.
You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting
demonstrators who demonstrated
against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime
had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot
up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but
on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their
weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.
However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional)
human beings.
WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11
What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international
law?
Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the
UK drone strikes.
"... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
"... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
"... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
"... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
"... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
"... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
"... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
"... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
"... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
"... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
"... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
"... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
"... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
"... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
"... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
"... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
"... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
"... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
"... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
"... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
"... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
"... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
"... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
"... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
"... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
"... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
"... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
"... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
"... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
"... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
"... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
"... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
"... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
"... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
"... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
"... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
"... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
"... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
"... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
"... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
"... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
"... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
"... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call
it peace.
ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19
"Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's
for real.
2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict
in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been
considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness
and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live
translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548
30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash
of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened:
Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and
cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos
uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.
A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command
system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches
from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.
30.10.2015
Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried
out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General
Staff said Friday.
In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps,
and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate
said.
"In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public
after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene
was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity
of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the
country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said.
"The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.
Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried
to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow
statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We
are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes
to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and
other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and
destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.
After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to
diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish
alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare,
and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened
ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's
legacy!
Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52
Well said.
I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the
anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected
to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.
Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution.
Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as
the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear
day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.
Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28
Pete Piper
In brief;
The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies
US enemies.
... ... ...
midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35
When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian
lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said
they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how
utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy
via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments
section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots
on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers
lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama
Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send
in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder
the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars
the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing
governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth
to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing
ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's
foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.
SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03
We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and
power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off
their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.
The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.
This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged
idiot John McCain pulling the strings.
Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58
The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having
just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have
to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed
up by post disaster rationalisation....
whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is
little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated
disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to
show what a big John Wayne he is!!
DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56
There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling
countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy
will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually
unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule
of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a
nation of lies.
Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47
Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was
presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported
that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?
Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36
No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally
illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18
Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks
from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job
of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he
was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing
up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and
was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone
who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:
1. 8 Trillion to our debt
2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish
and English...10 x over.
4. War on Cops
5. War with China
6. Invasion from Central America
I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!
SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47
Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.
Forever Gone is all trust.
His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages
that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.
Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.
HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45
Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment
to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.
With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President
is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the
so-called US military-industrial complex.
Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US
military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years
M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled
him.
Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00
Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the
Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration
camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their
respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ...
all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone
has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.
USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command-
there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a
civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair...
a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting
at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in
tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space...
no doubt we shall see them here too.
All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later
will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force
of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a
state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .
Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while
recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists
are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !
I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free
of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the
west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS .
This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they
occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will
sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken
lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash
must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...
My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows
!) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets
via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just
solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge
with no mercy .
amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52
Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me
do it",
Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues
to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.
Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."
Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?
"What's your position on the Empire?"
"Oh, what Empire, you ask?"
"The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools
of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"
lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41
Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.
The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to
have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.
It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and
keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the
only win they care about.
What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money
we don't have.
Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26
Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are
fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will
he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian
airstrikes?
How stupid can a President get?
Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous
policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy
is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.
phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56
That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign
troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international
law all the time.
nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35
Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State
And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really
simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?
Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government
or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why
is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?
phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33
The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S.
was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel,
while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were
arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't
going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria.
The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused
a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to
oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.
amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31
Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which
he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is
a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America ---
as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his
role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?
Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48
Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before
dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even
among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate
leader?
Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41
Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided
Syria a la Germany after WW2.
TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36
"It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"
Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.
TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29
The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim
the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".
Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27
The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military
do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.
The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS
headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.
Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15
Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are
also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following
the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.
I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend
their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.
centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48
The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also
fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.
Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47
@Verbum Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became
insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?
Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds
corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being
invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military,
throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total
surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy,
and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have
laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.
gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46
ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos
in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...
ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21
So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to
support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination,
right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority
of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?
Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue
and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation
of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part
of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent
kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely
irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.
MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21
Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another
occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as
if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of
Syria.
gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19
Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped
out by Russia and the axis of resistance...
Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08
Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they
vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more
oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we
can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why?
The countries being bombed surely know.
Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50
You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade
Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized
by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain
this to the public, sadly.
Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that
has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.
Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but
Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is
supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President
Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are
NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and
more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.
By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.
oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36
Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU
reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination
..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama
obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill
however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia
war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the
sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations
iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen
on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in
syria and iraq
oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42
But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a
full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.
" For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they
may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin
told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."
Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its
allies Russia
Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian
and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32
Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this
scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29
Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the
police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these
actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev
during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously
at work ' stirring the pot.
Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24
Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and
Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This
is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been
90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.
Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys
being sent to Syria are possibly there as:
cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground
the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian
troops deployment/movement).
The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in
key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents
do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".
The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of
talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.
I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting
the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry,
war).
petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13
The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?
Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34
But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything
and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice
in their head is Cash Money.
lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34
It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the
Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally
controlled for their agenda.
This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started
from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and
all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.
US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the
right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang,
he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't
solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has
investment in it?
My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country
they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.
And Obama is their puppet.
Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30
Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises
and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything
he says anymore.
He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that
he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause
him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of
what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.
Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07
Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.
Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.
I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian
Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering
the consistency of their thoughts and actions.
Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...
Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28
There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic
and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something
critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit
and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war,
UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.
You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically,
WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?
MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03
ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against
our own mercenaries make sense???
I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually
is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed,
Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan
and Iraq... it goes on...
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58
"It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going
to turn the tide in any way."
Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for
a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian
airstrikes and Iranian man power.
Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its
foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This
is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those
countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements
with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different
groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking
about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!
Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57
Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil
sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?
templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51
IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious
interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international
agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of
everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example
in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although
there's not much difference in reality.
IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing
(Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies
the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major
escalation? Yes.
Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs
Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder
people are saying Armageddon.
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50
ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have
an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to
suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's
forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis,
Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most
and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that
be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.
How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok
and American boots bad?
The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya
and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are
doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their
own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability
in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations
in the region.
The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing
short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America
lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.
I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us
are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests
of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states,
beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard
working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.
In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance
of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep
one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02
Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes,
the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly
megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's
destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders
and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)
ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00
Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according
to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.
The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops
into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's
a War Crime by every standard
Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge
into insanity writ large.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55
To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly
appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the
so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused
and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty
bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...
There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand
rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation
prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...
BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52
China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to
an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.
See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.
Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.
RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30
Their Plan B is fucked !!
But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate
corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve
up Syria a sovereign country.
Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian
rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is
a sovereign country.
The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in
Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West,
do best.
Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering
neo-Nazi's.
In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.
weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25
War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and
trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society,
but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.
... ... ...
Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21
Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the
opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?
This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.
Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59
Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.
"Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty
over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle
of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how
large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia,
signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states
the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic agreed to respect one
another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian
principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and
to the prevailing world order.[1]"
foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41
As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such
as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance
of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.
If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.
foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31
Johnny Kent
The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission
or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for
'annexing Crimea...
Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.
You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting
demonstrators who demonstrated
against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime
had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot
up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but
on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their
weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.
However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional)
human beings.
WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11
What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international
law?
Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the
UK drone strikes.
...the dystopia of the Wachowski Brothers' Matrix trilogy is already here: the
technological-industrial 'machine' is already running the world, a world where individual
humans are but insignificant little cogs with barely any autonomy. No single human
being - neither the most powerful politician, nor the most powerful businessman
- has the power to rein in the system. They necessarily have to follow the inexorable
logic of what has been unleashed.
~ G Sampath on John Zerzan
Neo: I can't go back, can I?
Morpheus: No. But if you could, would you really want to? ...We never free a mind
once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go...
As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.
~ The Matrix
Notable quotes:
"... And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc ) resist new guidance, what is going to be done about it? ..."
"... It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious "high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with. ..."
Are we assuming that the Pentagon, DoD, etc are just going to accept
new guidance from the top? (That sounds like wishful thinking to me.)
And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc ) resist new guidance, what is going
to be done about it? Currently more Americans trust the military than any
institution or politician. I highly doubt anyone could swing public opinion
against the Deep State at this point in time.
Daryl
It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US
Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and
intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against
the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious
"high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the
president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with.
JKF? I didn't know that the historian John King Fairbank was assassinated.
roadrider
Then I guess you have solid evidence to account for the actions of Allen
Dulles, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, David Morales, E. Howard Hunt,
Richard Helms, James Angleton and other CIA personnel and assets who had
perhaps the strongest motives to murder Kennedy
the means to carry out the crime, namely, their executive action
(assassination) capability and blackmail the government into aiding their
cover up and
the opportunity to carry out such a plan given their complete
lack of accountability to the rest of the government and their unmatched
expertise in lying, deceit, secrecy, fraud.
Because if you actually took the time to research or at least read about
their actions in this matter instead of just spouting bald assertions that
you decline to back up with any facts you would find their behavior nearly
impossible to explain other than having at, the very least, guilty knowledge
of the crime.
"... It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less. ..."
"... U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand ..."
"... As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. ..."
"... "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor." ..."
"... America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina. ..."
"... Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent. ..."
"... Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years. ..."
"... He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. ..."
"... The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year. ..."
"... Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse the usual suspects. ..."
"... Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending. ..."
"... At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard. ..."
"... Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area. ..."
"... During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions." ..."
"... Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea. ..."
"... In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less. ..."
Donald Trump could be the only presidential candidate talking sense about
for the American military's budget. That should scare everyone.
"I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right
now," the real- estate-mogul-turned-tautological-demagogue said on Meet the
Press. "It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you
know what? We can do it for a lot less."
He's right.
U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget
for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582
billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40
billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil,
sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand
As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain
an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also
right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons
systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The much-maligned F-35 will cost at least $1.5 trillion during the 55 years
that its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, expects it to be flying. That number
is up $500 billion from the original high estimate. But with a long list of
problems plaguing the stealth fighter, that price will most likely grow.
"I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary,
"like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because
of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor."
America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington
is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions
on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We
can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)
said during a campaign stop in South Carolina.
Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure
out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to
the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent.
Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would
likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars if not
hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute,
estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next
eight years.
Ballistic-missile-launching submarines aren't cheap, for example, and Cruz
wants 12 of them. "If you think it's too expensive to defend this nation," Cruz
said, "try not defending it."
He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the
Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault
vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military
spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10
years.
Ohio Governor John Kasich might be expected to have a more reasonable stance.
After all, he sat on the House Armed Services Committee for almost 18 years,
where he slashed budgets and challenged wasteful Pentagon projects.
But that past is a liability for him. The Super PAC that backed Bush
funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not
wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending
by $102 billion a year.
Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong
support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner
to
audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse the usual suspects.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record
in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to
reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut
in defense spending.
A Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II joint strike
fighter flies toward its new home at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, January
11, 2011. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago/Handout
At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion
albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose
a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer
to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National
Guard.
Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring
jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he
pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General
Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest
employers in the area.
Yet, Sanders ideological beliefs can sometimes
color his views. He was chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
in 2014 as scandal swept the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even as many VA
supporters called for reforms, Sanders defended the hospital system because
he felt conservatives were attacking a major government social-welfare agency.
He still defends his stewardship of the committee. "When I was chairman,
what we did is pass a $15-billion piece of legislation,"
Sanders
said during a recent debate with Clinton. "We went further than any time
in recent history in improving the healthcare of the men and women in this country
who put their lives on the line to defend us."
In the age of terrorism and Islamic State bombers, the prevailing political
wisdom holds that appearing soft on defense can lose a candidate the general
election. For many of the 2016 presidential candidates, looking strong means
spending a ton of cash. Even if you're from the party that holds fiscal responsibility
as its cornerstone.
But Trump doesn't care about any of that. In speech after speech, he has
called out politicians and defense contractors for colluding to build costly
weapons systems at the price of national security.
During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the
trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as
our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when
I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're
spending billions."
Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue,
he's got the right idea.
In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about
the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh
truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more
with so much less.
"... I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine ( Review , 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events. ..."
"... the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests. ..."
"... (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire ..."
I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine
(Review,
21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide
a realistic synopsis of the background to current events.
The real ending of the cold war was in 1986, when the USSR leadership resolved on a five-year
programme to move to parliamentary democracy and a market economy. The intention in Moscow was to
use that period to achieve a progressive convergence with the EU.
There could have been huge benefits to Europe in such convergence, but the process was deliberately
sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and
a democratic Russia would pose
a major threat to American long-term economic interests.
The chaos that we now have, and the distrust of America which motivates Russian policy, stems
primarily from decisions taken in Washington 30 years ago.
Martin Packard (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire
"... The Democrats' Athena only differs from Bush on the details. ..."
"... Her bellicose interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy relates in Hillary's Choice: ..."
"... Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as "the greatest strategic disaster in our history." ..."
"... Hillary, however, didn't let any inconvenient facts get in her way. She boasted that it was under a Democratic administration that the U.S. "changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change" and took credit for the bright idea of putting Ahmad Chalabi, convicted embezzler and known liar, on the U.S. payroll. Her speech reads like a Weekly Standard editorial, reiterating each of the War Party's talking points-the bio-weapons fantasy, the links to al-Qaeda gambit, the phantom nuclear arsenal: "This much," she maintaind, "is undisputed." ..."
"... When it comes to Iran, however, she is just as belligerent as the next neocon: Pelosi co-sponsored legislation imposing draconian economic sanctions on Iran and stops just short of calling another war. ..."
The Democrats' Athena only differs from Bush on the details.
Hillary's newfound centrism isn't completely insincere. Her bellicose
interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her
husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy
relates in Hillary's Choice:
Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: 'I urged him to bomb.'
The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The president expressed]
what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the
NATO alliance? Hillary responded, 'You cannot let this go on at the end of a
century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO
for if not to defend our way of life?' The next day the President declared that
force was necessary.
Together with Madeleine Albright-who famously complained to Colin Powell,
"What good is it having this superb military you're always talking about if
we can't use it?"-Hillary constituted the Amazonian wing of the Democratic Party
during the years of her husband's presidency. Her effort to outflank the Republicans
on the right when it comes to the Iran issue is a logical extension of her natural
bellicosity.
Hillary is nothing if not consistent: in her floor speech to the Senate during
the debate over the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, she declared,
"the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt"-a statement
she has never acknowledged regretting. Particularly endearing to the War Party,
she framed her "aye" vote in terms of the classic neoconservative myth of Bush
I's betrayal:
The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab
states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred
hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the
Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to
Saddam's revenge.
Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad
at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding
boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as "the greatest strategic
disaster in our history."
Hillary hails the 1998 bombing of Iraq, ordered by her husband, which killed
thousands of Iraqi civilians, and recounts the official mythology promulgated
by the Bush administration: "[T]he so-called presidential palaces in reality
were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which
Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked
the inspection process, the inspectors left." As we now know, there was nothing
even approaching WMD in those palaces, and Iraq had been effectively disarmed
at that point. In late February or early March, Scott Ritter, then a UN arms
inspector, met with then-U.S. ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson. Ritter was
told to provoke an incident so the U.S. could finish bombing by the start of
the Islamic New Year holiday.
Hillary, however, didn't let any inconvenient facts get in her way. She
boasted that it was under a Democratic administration that the U.S. "changed
its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change" and took
credit for the bright idea of putting Ahmad Chalabi, convicted embezzler and
known liar, on the U.S. payroll. Her speech reads like a Weekly Standard editorial,
reiterating each of the War Party's talking points-the bio-weapons fantasy,
the links to al-Qaeda gambit, the phantom nuclear arsenal: "This much," she
maintaind, "is undisputed."
What is undisputed these days is that the entire rationale for war was based
on trumped-up evidence of Iraq's alleged transgressions, but Hillary is unrepentant:
"No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was
in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States,
and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community
for more than a decade."
But there was no threat to the U.S. and Hillary knows it. What's more, her
hardcore constituency knows it, and they are becoming increasingly alienated
from-even actively hostile to-their putative presidential frontrunner over this
issue. Their anger is stoked by evidence that Hillary has imbibed the same neocon
Kool-Aid that has intoxicated the Bush administration and blinded it to the
failure of its policies in Iraq.
On a trip to Iraq during which 55 people-including one American soldier -were
killed by suicide bombers, Hillary was merrily chirping that the occupation
was "functioning quite well" and that the surge of suicide attacks indicated
that the insurgency was failing. Security was so bad that the road to the airport
was impassable, and the Senate delegation had to be transported to the Green
Zone by military helicopter. They dared not venture out into the streets of
Baghdad.
The disconnect between rhetoric and reality, between the antiwar views of
Hillary's left-wing base and the militant interventionism of Wittmann and the
DLC crowd, finally forced her to come to grips with the contradiction-or at
least to appear to do so. This occurred not in a public speech but in an e-mail
sent to her supporters in which the trouble she is in is acknowledged in the
first sentence: "The war in Iraq is on the minds of many of you who have written
or who have called my office asking questions and expressing frustration." Chances
are, these callers were expressing frustration not only with the policies of
the Bush administration but with her own complicity with Bush's Middle Eastern
agenda of seemingly endless aggression.
She falls back on the old "there are no quick and easy answers" ploy to give
an aura of thoughtfulness to a dishonest and constantly shifting position on
the war. While insisting that we should not "allow this to be an open-ended
commitment without limits or end," she reassures the War Party by distancing
herself from John Murtha and others who want an orderly withdrawal in a relatively
short time: "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately."
She hails the elections as the signal that we can start the withdrawal process
sometime "in the coming year," but not completely: we must leave behind "a smaller
contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities"-a
tripwire, in short, in the form of permanent bases.
... ... ...
What does Hillary want? A smarter, smoother, better-planned interventionism,
one that our allies find more amenable and yet is, in many ways, more militant
than the Republican version-one that "levels with the American people" about
the costs of empire and yet doesn't dispute the alleged necessity of American
hegemony. As she finds her voice as a would-be commander in chief, it isn't
one the traditional Left in this country will recognize.
... ... ...
If the Democratic establishment's stance on the war is at odds with the party's
antiwar activist base, then their outright warmongering on the Iranian issue
puts the two factions on a collision course. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi-who
effectively quashed fellow California Democrat Lynn Woolsey's resolution calling
for a withdrawal timetable -has followed the Hillary-Emanuel-DLC party line,
while managing somehow to assuage her constituents with plenty of pork and partisan
rhetoric. When it comes to Iran, however, she is just as belligerent as
the next neocon: Pelosi co-sponsored legislation imposing draconian economic
sanctions on Iran and stops just short of calling another war.
"... the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence ..."
"... as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner , and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war." ..."
"... And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own. ..."
"... Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. ..."
And the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail
in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the
hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military
can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering
cost or consequence.
Indeed, the "2012 attack that killed four Americans was a consequence of
the disorder and violence the administration left in the wake of its drive-by
war," as Tim Carney
rightly argues at The Washington Examiner, and the "useful lesson
from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent
messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war."
Unfortunately, that is a lesson too few in Washington are willing to learn.
Clinton herself maintains in the face of overwhelming evidence that
her handiwork in Libya is an
example of "smart power at its best"-a phrase whose
blatant inaccuracy should haunt her for the rest of her political career.
With arguments in favor of Libya, round two already
swirling and Clinton's poll numbers holding strong, it is not difficult
to imagine a Clinton White House dragging America back to fiddle with a country
it was
never particularly interested in fixing by this time next year.
And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must
not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass.
Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right
to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives'
all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all
easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would
have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint,
minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting
off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our
own.
Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism.
That's the real story here, and it's a bipartisan failure of judgment which
shows all the signs of running on repeat.
"... Our leaders are shallow on the subject of war. No, worse than shallow-they're silent. Which is one reason they will likely not be fully trusted should they make rough decisions down the road on Syria, or Iran, or elsewhere. ..."
"... War is terrible. That should be said over and over, not because it's a box you ought to check on the way to the presidency but because you're human and have a brain. ..."
"... War is always terrible, and it is made even more so when it is waged when it doesn't have to be. Most wars are avoidable and unnecessary, and yet most of our political leaders are reliably in favor of every U.S. military intervention around the world when it matters. Some may later say they regret their support for a previous war, especially if it was a much costlier one than they expected, but at the time the "safe" and "smart" position for ambitious politicians to take is to be for bombing and/or invading. Almost all of the political incentives at least since Desert Storm have flowed in the direction of supporting military action, and so most of the people that seek the presidency have learned not to be an early opponent of any proposed intervention. ..."
"... While there is near-constant U.S. warfare somewhere in the world, hardly anyone in politics talks about the need for peace. Just as our candidates don't express their hatred of war, they typically don't profess their desire for peace for fear that they will be pilloried as "weak." ..."
Peggy Noonan wrote a thoughtful
column on the horrors of war last week:
Our leaders are shallow on the subject of war. No, worse than shallow-they're silent. Which
is one reason they will likely not be fully trusted should they make rough decisions down the
road on Syria, or Iran, or elsewhere.
War is terrible. That should be said over and over, not because it's a box you ought to
check on the way to the presidency but because you're human and have a brain.
War is always terrible, and it is made even more so when it is waged when it doesn't have
to be. Most wars are avoidable and unnecessary, and yet most of our political leaders are reliably
in favor of every U.S. military intervention around the world when it matters. Some may later say
they regret their support for a previous war, especially if it was a much costlier one than they
expected, but at the time the "safe" and "smart" position for ambitious politicians to take is to
be for bombing and/or invading. Almost all of the political incentives at least since Desert Storm
have flowed in the direction of supporting military action, and so most of the people that seek the
presidency have learned not to be an early opponent of any proposed intervention.
Noonan recounts a telling exchange with a politician in which she asked him if he hated war. After
being reassured that he wasn't walking into a trap, he said yes, but still qualified the answer by
saying that war is sometimes necessary. The trouble is that most of our politicians, and almost all
of our presidential candidates, have never seen a war that they thought was unnecessary. Reflexive
interventionists may sometimes include the caveat that they don't want war, but in the next breath
they are keen to tell you why "action" is imperative. Sometimes they dress this up with euphemisms.
They don't talk about going to war, but say that that the U.S. shouldn't be standing "on the sidelines"
or that the U.S. needs to "lead," but invariably this amounts to a demand that force be used in another
country. Sometimes they dress up calls for war with technical terms, such as the much-abused "no-fly
zone" phrase, that obscure what they are talking about. At other times, they simply acquiesce in
a policy of lending support to a client state's horrific war, and that way they don't have to say
anything and can pretend to have nothing to do with it.
It is in this environment that relatively dovish candidates have to emphasize their readiness
to use force while hawkish candidates are under much less pressure to prove that they aren't warmongers.
While there is near-constant U.S. warfare somewhere in the world, hardly anyone in politics talks
about the need for peace. Just as our candidates don't express their hatred of war, they typically
don't profess their desire for peace for fear that they will be pilloried as "weak."
Despite the fact that U.S. forces have been engaged in hostilities for Obama's entire presidency,
the loudest and most frequent criticisms of his foreign policy are that he is supposedly too reluctant
to use force and didn't bomb Syria. If one of the most activist, militarized presidencies in modern
U.S. history is being portrayed in the media as insufficiently aggressive, we aren't likely to hear
our leaders regularly condemning the evils of war.
"... Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are an exceptional nation because we are an
indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance
of this claim confirms that she understands "American exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that
justifies interfering all over the globe. That is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant
twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's rhetoric means today. ..."
"... Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant part of U.S.
"leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the former. This
rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance of supporting
U.S. clients in the Gulf. ..."
"... Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some
of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential
contenders. ..."
"... That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together"
slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign
policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat. ..."
"... Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary
must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes. But if
that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many faults, didn't
pander to them. ..."
"... Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation.
In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting
America's credibility." ..."
"... Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same
effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available? ..."
"... Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds
about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her. She won't
get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does. Undecided voters (all 2 or 3%
of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience. She looks to sound suitably strong more
important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice for President. Old World Order , August 31,
2016 at 4:32 pm She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent
war. Not surprising, but deeply depressing all the same. ..."
"... If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but
since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans who
consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S. hegemony,
especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign as running
a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life and death decisions
on the rest of the world. ..."
"... When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S. to suppress
Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since it contradicts the
Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature. ..."
"... Indispensable to what? Wholesale destabilization of the Middle East? ..."
"... I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want Clinton to think she has a mandate for this
kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy, it appears not to matter which party has the
presidency anymore. ..."
"... Meanwhile, over at the WaPo, neocon cheerleader Jennifer Rubin loves the same speech: Hillary
Clinton is a responsible centrist .. . ..."
"... If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start it
intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their own reality.
I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens my convictions.
To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually studying the Russians.
..."
"... Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war
with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start something.
Smells like yellow cake to me. ..."
"... Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back
the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone deaf
on this stuff. ..."
"... The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength
over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly for the
Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong thing, because
we will go to hell if we appear to be weak. ..."
Hillary Clinton's
speech to the American Legion in Cincinnati didn't contain anything new or surprising. It was
billed as an endorsement of "American exceptionalism" defined as support for activist foreign policy
and global "leadership," and that is what Clinton delivered. One thing that struck me while listening
to it was the muted response from the audience. Despite Clinton's fairly heavy-handed efforts to
present herself as a friend of veterans and champion of the military, the crowd didn't seem very
impressed. The delivery of the speech was typically wooden, but then no one expects stirring oratory
from Clinton. Either the audience wasn't interested in what they were hearing, or they found Clinton
to be a poor messenger, or both.
The substance was mostly boilerplate cheerleading for the status quo in foreign policy, but a
few particularly jarring lines stood out. Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are
an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable
nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance of this claim confirms that she understands "American
exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that justifies interfering all over the globe. That
is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's
rhetoric means today.
Clinton thought that she was dinging Trump when she said, "We can't cozy up to dictators." That
would be all right if it were true, but it is hard to take seriously from a committed supporter of
U.S. "leadership." Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant
part of U.S. "leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the
former. This rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance
of supporting U.S. clients in the Gulf. Clinton has made a point of promising that the U.S.
will stay quite cozy with our despotic clients when she is president, and it is likely that the U.S.
will probably get even cozier still if she has anything to say about it.
Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some
of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential
contenders. There were brief nods to the nuclear deal with Iran and New START that a Republican
wouldn't have made, but they were only mentioned in passing. Clinton insisted that "America must
lead" and conjured up a vision of the vacuums that would be created if the U.S. did not do this.
This is a standard hawkish line that implies that the U.S. always has to be involved in conflict
and crises no matter how little the U.S. has at stake in them.
At one point, Clinton asserted, "Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics."
That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed and
most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision. That's not
healthy for the quality of our foreign policy debates or our foreign policy as a whole, and it shows
the degree to which Clinton is out of touch with much of the country that she thinks this is a credible
thing to say.
"At one point, Clinton asserted, 'Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics.'
That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed
and most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision."
That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together"
slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign
policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat.
Broad consensus is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I'd argue that some degree of consensus
is necessary in order for a democratic system to function. But any such consensus should emerge
from vigorous debate, which does not exist in Washington or in the mainstream media. It should
not be simply imposed on the country by an unchallenged, ossified elite that is either stuck in
the Cold War past or has a vested interest in renewing the Cold War.
Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary
must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes.
But if that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many
faults, didn't pander to them.
Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation.
In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting
America's credibility."
Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same
effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available?
Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds
about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her.
She won't get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does.
Undecided voters (all 2 or 3% of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience.
She looks to sound suitably strong more important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice
for President.
She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent war. Not
surprising, but deeply depressing all the same.
Here's hoping that someone anyone, really keeps this loathsome throwback to the worst aspects
of US foreign policy of the past 20 years out of the White House.
If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but
since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans
who consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S.
hegemony, especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign
as running a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life
and death decisions on the rest of the world.
When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S.
to suppress Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since
it contradicts the Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature.
Do these people believe that corrupt politicians in the U.S. are suddenly anointed by God and
transformed into world leaders in a sudden act of Grace? Sorry for the rant but I would seriously
love to ask someone this question. This is not a troll at all. I have pondered this many times.
How would Huckabee respond to this? He wrote a lucid essay on Iran about 10yrs ago before he went
full Neocon.
What a choice we face in November give full executive authority to either:
1. The volatile vulgarian who is smart enough to reject the tired nation-building, Democracy
Evangelization, Responsibility-to-Protect, and other dangerous establishment policies. But who
doesn't think much at all about foreign policy and could even blunder into a big war out of personal
pique.
OR
2. The champion of mindless and discredited bellicosity. Who is - probably - smart enough to
avoid a new large ground war or nuclear despite her dangerous anti-Russian rhetoric, but who will
CERTAINLY initiate one or more new unnecessary, unjust and futile military interventions.
I wish she would stop putting out this nonsense. I really don't want to skip my vote for president,
but this sort of nonsense leaves me cold. I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want
Clinton to think she has a mandate for this kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy,
it appears not to matter which party has the presidency anymore.
We are an Exceptional nation because we are an Indispensable nation
This is a tautology. You can swap the words exceptional and indispensable and have the exact
same sentence.
Commenter Man, yet another example of how people will create their own reality. I am certain
I will read the same tripe tomorrow when I peruse the links on 'realclearpolitics.com'. It is
the only Neocon portal that I bother with.
If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start
it intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their
own reality. I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens
my convictions. To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually
studying the Russians.
Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war
with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start
something. Smells like yellow cake to me.
Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back
the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone
deaf on this stuff.
The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength
over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly
for the Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong
thing, because we will go to hell if we appear to be weak.
I just found this via Hacker News perhaps it was in yesterday's links and I missed it. Truly
scary in the Orwellian sense and yet another reason not to use a smartphone. Chilling read.
SAN FRANCISCO - Want to invisibly spy on 10 iPhone owners without their knowledge? Gather their
every keystroke, sound, message and location? That will cost you $650,000, plus a $500,000 setup
fee with an Israeli outfit called the NSO Group. You can spy on more people if you would like
- just check out the company's price list.
The NSO Group is one of a number of companies that sell surveillance tools that can capture
all the activity on a smartphone, like a user's location and personal contacts. These tools can
even turn the phone into a secret recording device.
Since its founding six years ago, the NSO Group has kept a low profile. But last month, security
researchers caught its spyware trying to gain access to the iPhone of a human rights activist
in the United Arab Emirates. They also discovered a second target, a Mexican journalist who wrote
about corruption in the Mexican government.
Now, internal NSO Group emails, contracts and commercial proposals obtained by The New York
Times offer insight into how companies in this secretive digital surveillance industry operate.
The emails and documents were provided by two people who have had dealings with the NSO Group
but would not be named for fear of reprisals.
I could be wrong, but the promos for Sixty Minutes on the local news make it seem they might
be about this subject. Either way it is another scare you about what your cell phone can do story,
possibly justified this time.
An anecdote which I cannot support with links or other evidence:
A friend of mine used to work for a (non USA) security intelligence service. I was bouncing
ideas off him for a book I'm working on, specifically ideas about how monitoring/electronics/spying
can be used to measure and manipulate societies. He was useful for telling if my ideas (for a
Science Fiction novel) were plausible without ever getting into details. Always very careful to
keep his replies in the "white" world of what any computer security person would know, without
delving into anything classified.
One day we were way out in the back blocks, and I laid out one scenario for him to see if it
would be plausible. All he did was small cryptically, and point at a cell phone lying on a table
10 meters away. He wouldn't say a word on the subject.
It wasn't his cellphone, and we were in a relatively remote region with no cell phone coverage.
It told me that my book idea was far too plausible. It also told me that every cellphone is
likely recording everything all the time, for later upload when back in signal range. (Or at least
there was the inescapable possibility that the cell phones were doing so, and that he had to assume
foreign (or domestic?) agencies could be following him through monitoring of cell phones of friends
and neighbors.)
It was a clarifying moment for me.
Every cellphone has a monumental amount of storage space (especially for audio files). Almost
every cellphone only has a software "switch" for turning it off, not a hardware interlock where
you can be sure off is off. So how can you ever really be sure it is "off"? Answer- you can't
Sobering thought. Especially when you consider the Bluffdale facility in the USA.
There are dozens of digital spying companies that can
track everything a target does on a smartphone.
Credit
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
SAN FRANCISCO - Want to invisibly spy on 10
iPhone
owners without their knowledge? Gather their every keystroke, sound,
message and location? That will cost you $650,000, plus a $500,000 setup fee with an
Israeli outfit called the NSO Group. You can spy on more people if you would like -
just check out the company's price list.
The NSO Group is one of a number of companies that
sell surveillance tools
that can capture all the activity on a smartphone, like a
user's location and personal contacts. These tools can even turn the phone into a
secret recording device.
Since its founding six years ago, the NSO Group has kept a low profile. But last
month, security researchers
caught its spyware trying to gain access
to the iPhone of a human rights activist
in the United Arab Emirates. They also discovered a second target, a Mexican
journalist who wrote about corruption in the Mexican government.
Now, internal NSO Group emails, contracts and commercial proposals obtained by The
New York Times offer insight into how companies in this secretive digital
surveillance industry operate. The emails and documents were provided by two people
who have had dealings with the NSO Group but would not be named for fear of
reprisals.
The company is one of dozens of digital spying outfits that track everything a target
does on a smartphone. They aggressively market their services to governments and law
enforcement agencies around the world. The industry argues that this spying is
necessary to track terrorists, kidnappers and drug lords. The NSO Group's corporate
mission statement is "Make the world a safe place."
Ten people familiar with the company's sales, who refused to be identified, said that
the NSO Group has a strict internal vetting process to determine who it will sell to.
An ethics committee made up of employees and external counsel vets potential
customers based on human rights rankings set by the World Bank and other global
bodies. And to date, these people all said, NSO has yet to be denied an export
license.
But critics note that the company's spyware has also been used to track journalists
and human rights activists.
"There's no check on this," said Bill Marczak, a senior fellow at the Citizen Lab at
the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs. "Once NSO's systems are
sold, governments can essentially use them however they want. NSO can say they're
trying to make the world a safer place, but they are also making the world a more
surveilled place."
The NSO Group's capabilities are in higher demand now that companies like Apple,
Facebook and Google are using stronger encryption to protect data in their systems,
in the process making it harder for government agencies to track suspects.
The NSO Group's spyware finds ways around encryption by baiting targets to click
unwittingly on texts containing malicious links or by exploiting previously
undiscovered software flaws. It was taking advantage of
three such flaws in Apple software
- since fixed - when it was discovered by
researchers last month.
The cyberarms industry typified by the NSO Group operates in a legal gray area, and
it is often left to the companies to decide how far they are willing to dig into a
target's personal life and what governments they will do business with. Israel has
strict export controls for digital weaponry, but the country has never barred the
sale of NSO Group technology.
Since it is privately held, not much is known about the NSO Group's finances, but its
business is clearly growing. Two years ago, the NSO Group sold a controlling stake in
its business to Francisco Partners, a
private equity
firm based in San Francisco, for $120 million. Nearly a year
later, Francisco Partners was exploring a sale of the company for 10 times that
amount, according to two people approached by the firm but forbidden to speak about
the discussions.
The company's internal documents detail pitches to countries throughout Europe and
multimillion-dollar contracts with Mexico, which paid the NSO Group more than $15
million for three projects over three years, according to internal NSO Group emails
dated in 2013.
"Our intelligence systems are subject to Mexico's relevant legislation and have legal
authorization," Ricardo Alday, a spokesman for the Mexican embassy in Washington,
said in an emailed statement. "They are not used against journalists or activists.
All contracts with the federal government are done in accordance with the law."
Zamir Dahbash, an NSO Group spokesman, said that the sale of its spyware was
restricted to authorized governments and that it was used solely for criminal and
terrorist investigations. He declined to comment on whether the company would cease
selling to the U.A.E. and Mexico after last week's disclosures.
For the last six years, the NSO Group's main product, a tracking system called
Pegasus, has been used by a growing number of government agencies to target a range
of smartphones - including iPhones, Androids, and BlackBerry and Symbian systems -
without leaving a trace.
Among the Pegasus system's capabilities, NSO Group contracts assert, are the
abilities to extract text messages, contact lists, calendar records, emails, instant
messages and GPS locations. One capability that the NSO Group calls "room tap" can
gather sounds in and around the room, using the phone's own microphone.
Pegasus can use the camera to take snapshots or screen grabs. It can deny the phone
access to certain websites and applications, and it can grab search histories or
anything viewed with the phone's web browser. And all of the data can be sent back to
the agency's server in real time.
In its commercial proposals, the NSO Group asserts that its tracking software and
hardware can install itself in any number of ways, including "over the air stealth
installation," tailored text messages and emails, through public Wi-Fi hot spots
rigged to secretly install NSO Group software, or the old-fashioned way, by spies in
person.
Much like a traditional software company, the NSO Group prices its surveillance tools
by the number of targets, starting with a flat $500,000 installation fee. To spy on
10 iPhone users, NSO charges government agencies $650,000; $650,000 for 10 Android
users; $500,000 for five BlackBerry users; or $300,000 for five Symbian users - on
top of the setup fee, according to one commercial proposal.
You can pay for more targets. One hundred additional targets will cost $800,000, 50
extra targets cost $500,000, 20 extra will cost $250,000 and 10 extra costs $150,000,
according to an NSO Group commercial proposal. There is an annual system maintenance
fee of 17 percent of the total price every year thereafter.
What that gets you, NSO Group documents say, is "unlimited access to a target's
mobile devices." In short, the company says: You can "remotely and covertly collect
information about your target's relationships, location, phone calls, plans and
activities - whenever and wherever they are."
And, its proposal adds, "It leaves no traces whatsoever."
The bizarre thing is that any elected politician dumb enough to take
Kissenger's advice has not prospered. Nixon was impeached, Ford defeated, and
when Carter was dumb enough to take Kissenger's advice about letting the Shah
of Iran into the US, his presidency went into meltdown. Why would anyone listen
to him? putting aside the question that he is a war criminal.
Yes, since we know that for Clinton, his war criminal credentials fall
into the "feature not a bug" category, the question is why the smartest,
most qualified candidate
evuh
would not see pattern of failure
attendant on those who tie their wagon to his star.
Like so many Clinton failures (from both), it wasn't the fault of the
advisor, but those taking the advice didn't do it exactly the way Henry K
told them to do it. Think Welfare Reform, Libya, etc. All the fault of
those putting the plans into operation.
Smartest people in the room, gravitating toward each other understand
how their brilliance can be misunderstood.
"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised an eye-popping $143 million
in August for her candidacy and the Democratic Party, the best showing of her
campaign, her team said Thursday"
And yet my spam folder yesterday contained 46 (count 'em) pleas for
donations from HillaryClinton.com, sent over the last ten days, including the
one I read that said "Just send us a dollar."
And yes, since there was absolutely NO "unsubscribe" link on the emails I
initially received from the Clinton Cult, I did consign all further
communication to spam, thank you very much.
I'm sure they were just trying to make sure that 'eye-popping' amount
isn't from the fewest donors in history. By about the fourth one of those I
finally determined they really didn't need me to donate money they just
needed to be able to count me as a donor
Following right after that link is the withdrawal of $$$ for airtime from
Ted Strickland's campaign. Not some House race, not even a unlikely Senate
attempt, but they don't have enough money to hammer on somebody who not only
is chasing a big prize but actually already
won
the damn race once
already.
And you can convince me that it is 100% likely Strickland will lose. But
if you don't support him, you don't allow an alternative view to be
developed and used to hammer the winner during his term. Isn't that how you
play politics? You don't just show up around election, play nice, and if
polls yeech, polls don't go your way you just go home.
But the Democrats don't even want those kinds of victories. They want
1) The Executive Branch
2) No other branch of government so they can
blame what they don't (or worse, do) do haha, if you read that right you
get "dodo" on the other side.
Ms Clinton has an insane amount of money. And what she spends it on
(herself) and what she doesn't (anybody else) is what tells you what you
need to know.
The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the
nail on the head, but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a
tendency (but not this is a tendency, not a rule or fate) towards increasing
oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized to trust and
obey party leadership. Factional dissidents within the Dems have to contend not
only with the party oligarchy and its formidable resources, the decentralized
and sprawling nature of the organization, but with a membership that barely
participates but, when it does, turns out when and how the leadership wants.
The Militant Labour tendency example isn't perfect entryism into a
Parliamentary party is easier than our party system but it speaks volumes. To
get a hearing from the party membership you can only criticize so much of the
organization itself; if you and a faction entered and created a "Destroy the
Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you
pointedly attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their
officials, platform and the president though I would argue you'd need exactly
a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the party oligarchy and
changing the culture.
Keep in mind I do say this as a Green and a person who did his PhD on
inner-party democracy (or lack thereof). Lack of democracy is a persistent
theme in studies of parties for the last century.
It would make more sense to really unite the left around electoral reform in
the long run and push for proportional representation at the state/local level
for legislatures and city councils. While it would probably be preferable for
democracy's sake to have one big district elected with an open-list vote, in
the US context we'd probably go the German route of mixed-member proportional
that combines geographical single-member districts with proportional voting.
Speculating very freely: Could there be a flow of goods we don't know
about? Like containers full of opioids? Or is there a capital flow that
shouldn't exist, but does? Money laundering from those same opioids? Money
laundering generally? The Bezzle? Readers?
There's an enormous amount of people in the USA who are working on some kind
of black market. You don't have ten million unemployed men who are simply
sitting idle all the time.
Those people will never report that they are making money on the black
market.
For instance, there's going to be an enormous amount of weed leaving
Colorado and Washington and transported to other states. Whatever used to be
traveling over the border, we can now produce domestically. Which is great,
don't get me wrong, but until it's legalized in all fifty states, it doesn't
show up on the books. Doing this is as easy as staying in CO for a few weeks,
buying your maximum each day, then going a few states over and selling.
If you are implying that Hillary Clinton supports the center left, you
have clearly not been paying attention her entire career, or to the careers
of those with whom she has surrounded herself. Even with today's
ridiculously shifted Overton window, there is nothing "left" about being an
oligarch or a war criminal.
Can't speak for NC as a whole, but in my opinion, NC writers are
criticizing the person likely to win the election. These issues of
corruption need to be hashed out and handled well before inauguration.
Perhaps NC is providing a bit of balance, given the rest of the MSM has
about 11 anti-Trump pieces for every 2 anti-HRC ones?
And having browsed through the FBI interview notes with Clinton, her
defence against serious wrongdoing is that she is a mixture of forgetful and
incompetent. Is this really the best the Dems can do?
Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo
(maybe others want to chime in):
Unlimited immunity from prosecution
for banking executive criminals
More shiny new undeclared
"nation-building" and "RTP" wars
Globalist trade deals that enshrine
unaccountable corporate tribunals over national sovereignty, environmental
and worker protection, and self-determination
America's national
business conducted in secrecy at the behest of corporate donors to
tax-exempt foundations
Paid-for quid-pro-quo media manipulation of
candidate and election coverage
Health care system reform designed to
benefit entrenched insurance providers over providing access to
reasonable-cost basic care.
Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio
looks about right.
In reality we have a center leans extreme right Democratic candidate and
a left, right and center Republican candidate. One has a clear record of
supporting and increasing conservative policies in American and the other
has given speeches that have been all over the spectrum.
But hey, you keep trying to shame people who don't give a fig about
useless and false labels but are vastly interested in the normalization of
corruption.
I personally would like to see the reform/ takeover the Democratic party
squad concede that third parties don't have a level playing field(which may
indeed be why they consistently fail) and then help work to fix the problem.
A starting point would be opening every single primary to every voting age
individual or forcing the private parties to pay for their own darn soiree.
It's the democratic way to settle the debate on whether or not it will be
easier to reform the DNC or use a third party to enact progressive policy.
(Sigh ."Exhibit "A" for "why I'm not a Republican" anymore .)
A law mandating that AG workers get paid overtime just like about everyone
else is not a "tax".
The excuses they come up with for justifying the status quo are also a
treat:
-No O/T pay because it's "Seasonal Work", and farmers can't spread their
harvest labor over the whole year? (But nothing said about the months when the
labor is making zero bucks, when the seasonal workers aren't on the payroll)
Can't find additional help because of "labor shortages"? Easy enough to
fix. PAY MORE MONEY. Why don't "free market" principles ever apply to labor?
-A "regressive tax on poor people"? Maybe they wouldn't be so poor, if they
were paid for their O/T.
-Encouraging automation because "labor costs too much". Au contraire. It's
the other way around. Development of automation (and the skills/jobs needed to
design build and support these machines) is slowed, because labor is too cheap.
And finally, "a $1Billion tax" ..assuming their calculations are correct (a
big if, figures don't lie but liars figure):
.a billion dollar nationwide tax amounts to ( ..one billion divvied by
300 million, carry the one .) .about four bucks a year per person. OMG, I
might have to skip that McNuggets Value Meal (that will also be made by robots
instead of "overpaid" labor) once a year.
People like this are so full of s##t, their eyes are brown.
I'm actually thankful to the folks running ZH some months ago they made
a (likely mobile-driven) change to their site layout, with result that it no
longer renders readably in my default browser, a legacy FF version, dating
from just before the Mozilla weenies decided to remove the 'image display'
toggle from the user preferences menu (disabling bandwidth-hogging image
rendering is really useful in a shared-WiFi context and when you want to
focus on textual content). So now I'm not even tempted to quick-scan the
site's inane alarmist headlines for yuks.
Whether Clinton's strategy of trying to peel off a small percentage of Republicans to win the
presidency will actually work remains to be seen. There seems to be scant evidence in the polls that
a significant amount of Republicans will support her; Clinton's advantage mostly stems from the fact
that black and Hispanic Americans understandably oppose Trump in historic numbers. But if the strategy
hinders Democrats from retaking Congress, the damage is going to be seen for years.
"Commentary: Who is hacking U.S. election databases and why are they so difficult to identify?"
[
Reuters ]. "This summer has been rife with news of election-related hacking. Last month it was
the Democratic National Committee; this week, voter election databases in Illinois and Arizona
The
FBI has said that government-affiliated Russian hackers are responsible for both intrusions. Yet
the hackers' motivation is unclear. We don't know whether the hackers were engaging in espionage,
attempting to manipulate the election, or just harvesting low-hanging cyber-fruit for their own financial
gain." Well, the FBI is totes apolitical, so that settles that. There are brave Russkis out there.
Let's go kill them!
So much for keeping the military out of politics:
In a joint statement, two Four Star Generals, Bob Sennewald and David Maddox are endorsing
Hillary Clinton for President. Sennewald is the former Commanding General, U.S. Army Forces Command,
and Maddox was formerly Commander in Chief, U.S. Army- Europe. Clinton spoke at the American Legion
on Wednesday:
"Having each served over 34 years and retired as an Army 4- star general, we each have worked
closely with America's strongest allies, both in NATO and throughout Asia. Our votes have always
been private, and neither of us has ever previously lent his name or voice to a presidential candidate.
Having studied what is at stake for this country and the alternatives we have now, we see only
one viable leader, and will be voting this November for Secretary Hillary Clinton."
Agreeing with the 50 former Republican security officials who have called Trump "dangerous," Wolfowitz
ultimately admitted that he has no choice but to vote for Clinton.
"I wish there were somebody I could be comfortable voting for," he continued. "I might have to
vote for Hillary Clinton, even though I have big reservations about her."
Wolfowitz served as deputy secretary leading up to and during the Iraq war, a regime Trump has
been highly critical of since it began. Clinton, on the other hand. voted for the war, a point that
has been widely criticized by her opponents
On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled
his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the
process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career
intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit
them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation."
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because
there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded
and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were,
respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many
more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey,
Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few
in the Congress. All are
major recipients
of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons.
One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy
at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the
widely condemned January 2001
last minute pardon
of
Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize
that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The
only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described
as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have
been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering
to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise
to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
=====
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because
there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded
and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were,
respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many
more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey,
Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few
in the Congress. All are
major recipients
of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy
at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the
widely condemned January 2001
last minute pardon
of
Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize
that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The
only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described
as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have
been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering
to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise
to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
Neocons will support Hillary breaking the ranks of Republican Party, as she is one of them:
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but
the country still can be."
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?" ..."
"... Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives. ..."
"... In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November. ..."
"... "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it considerably." ..."
"... In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump." ..."
"... The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official. ..."
"... Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy. ..."
"... Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines. ..."
"... "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would
be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role
he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"
Even more than his economic
positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts
of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group
is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.
In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin
and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy
and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote
for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.
"Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department
official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad.
Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding
that "he has already damaged it considerably."
Cohen, an Iraq war backer who is often called a neoconservative but said he does not identify
himself that way, said he would "strongly prefer a third party candidate" to Trump, but added: "Probably
if absolutely no alternative: Hillary."
In a March 1
interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed
the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton
over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable
to Trump."
Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP foreign policy insiders -
many of whom are not considered neocons - that
was published Wednesday night by the military blog War on the Rocks. "[W]e are unable to support
a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head," the letter declared. It cited everything from Trump's
"admiration for foreign dictators" to his "inexcusable" support for "the expansive use of torture."
The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter
Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick,
a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official;
and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department
official.
Several other neocons said they find themselves in an impossible position, constitutionally incapable
of voting for Clinton but repelled by a Republican whose foreign policy views they consider somewhere
between nonexistent and dangerous - and disconnected from their views about American power and values
abroad.
"1972 was the first time I was old enough to vote for president, and I did not vote. Couldn't
vote for McGovern for foreign policy reasons, nor for Nixon because of Watergate," said Elliott Abrams,
a former national security council aide to George W. Bush who specializes in democracy and the Middle
East. "I may be in the same boat in 2016, unable to vote for Trump or Clinton."
Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, something of a dean of Washington neoconservatives,
said he would seek out a third option before choosing between Trump and Clinton.
"If it's Trump-Clinton, I'd work with others to recruit a strong conservative third party candidate,
and do my best to help him win (which by the way would be more possible than people think, especially
when people - finally - realize Trump shouldn't be president and Hillary is indicted)," Kristol wrote
in an email.
Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several
neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on
human rights and democracy.
Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when
Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might,
wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines.
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be
saved, but the country still can be."
In an interview, Kagan said his opposition to Trump "has nothing to do with foreign policy."
Hillary election means new wars and death of the US servicemen/servicewomen. So Khan gambit is
much more dangerous that it looks as it implicitly promoted militarism and endless "permanent war
for permanent peace".
Notable quotes:
"... Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks. ..."
"... There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover. ..."
"... Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well. ..."
"... Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically. ..."
"... The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: " Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better. " ..."
"... So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations. ..."
"... Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States. ..."
"... As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. ..."
U.S. "think tanks" rile up the American public against an ever-shifting roster of foreign "enemies"
to justify wars which line the pockets of military contractors who kick back some profits to the
"think tanks," explains retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.
The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called "think tanks" play in corrupting
U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks "identified dozens of examples of scholars
conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy."
Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, while the Times investigation demonstrates well that the
U.S. is even more corrupt albeit the corruption is better disguised than the many foreign countries
which we routinely accuse of corruption, the Times failed to identify the most egregious form of
corruption in our system. That is, those think tanks are constantly engaged in the sort of activities
which the Defense Department identifies as "Information War" when conducted by foreign countries
that are designated by the U.S. as an enemy at any given moment.
Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign
nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best
known U.S. think tanks.
There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such
as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found
wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false
narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the
U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.
Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated
to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well.
The measure of success from such a disinformation and propaganda effort can be seen when the narrative
is adopted by secondary communicators who are perhaps the most important target audience. That is
because they are "key communicators" in PsyOp terms, who in turn become provocateurs in propagating
the false narrative even more broadly and to its own audiences, and becoming "combat multipliers"
in military terms.
It is readily apparent now that Russia has taken its place as the primary target within U.S. sights.
One doesn't have to see the U.S. military buildup on Russia's borders to understand that but only
see the propaganda themes of our "think tanks."
The Role of Rand
A prime example of an act of waging information war to incite actual military attack is the Rand
Corporation, which, incidentally, published a guide to information war and the need to condition
the U.S. population for war back in the 1990s.
A
scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a
nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.
Rand was founded by, among others, the war enthusiast, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who was
the model for the character of Gen. Buck Turgidson in the movie "Dr. Strangelove." LeMay once stated
that he would not be afraid to start a nuclear war with Russia and that spirit would seem to be alive
and well at Rand today as they project on to Vladimir Putin our own eagerness for inciting a war.
The particular act of information warfare by Rand is shown in a recent Rand article: "How to
Counter Putin's Subversive War on the West." The title suggests by its presupposition that Putin
is acting in the offensive form of war rather than the defensive form of war. But it is plain to
see he is in the defensive form of war when one looks at the numerous provocations and acts of aggression
carried out by American officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and General
Philip Breedlove, and the U.S. and NATO military buildup on Russia's borders.
Within this Rand article however can be found no better example of psychological projection than
this propagandistic pablum that too many commentators, some witless, some not, will predictably repeat:
"Moscow's provocative active measures cause foreign investors and international lenders to see
higher risks in doing business with Russia. Iran is learning a similar, painful lesson as it persists
with harsh anti-Western policies even as nuclear-related sanctions fade. Russia will decide its own
priorities. But it should not be surprised if disregard for others' interests diminishes the international
regard it seeks as an influential great power."
In fact, an objective, dispassionate observation of U.S./Russian policies would show it has been
the U.S. carrying out these "provocative active measures" as the instigator, not Russia.
Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility
and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly
working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically.
The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example.
Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against
Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent
article of Carnegie, entitled: "Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better."
It begins: "The risk of outright conflict in Europe is higher than it has been for years and the
confrontation between Russia and the West shows no sign of ending. To prevent misunderstandings and
dangerous incidents, the two sides must improve their methods of communication."
Unfortunately, that is now true. But the article's author suggests throughout that each party,
Russia and the U.S./NATO, had an equal hand in the deterioration of relations. He wrote: "The West
needs to acknowledge that the standoff with Russia is not merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian,
nationalistic, and assertive," as if Western officials don't already know that that accusation was
only a propaganda theme for their own populations to cover up the West's aggressiveness.
Blaming Russia
So Americans, such as myself, must acknowledge and confront that the standoff with Russia is not
only not "merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive,"
but it is rather, that the U.S. is "turning authoritarian, nationalistic," and even more "assertive,"
i.e., aggressive, toward the world.
Suz Tzu wrote that a "sovereign" must know oneself and the enemy. In the case of the U.S. sovereign,
the people and their elected, so-called representatives, there is probably no "sovereign" in human
history more lacking in self-awareness of their own nation's behavior toward other nations.
So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even
worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations.
When that then generates a response from some nation with a tin-pot military relative to our own,
with ours paid for by the privileged financial position we've put ourselves into post-WWII, our politicians
urgently call for even more military spending from the American people to support even more aggression,
all in the guise of "national defense."
Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing
for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in
Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the
"Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian,
nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States.
The Presidential Policy Guidance "establishes the standard operating procedures for when the United
States takes direct action, which refers to lethal and non-lethal uses of force, including capture
operations against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities."
What other nation, besides Israel probably, has a governmental "Regulation" providing for assassinations
outside "areas of active hostilities?"
It should readily be evident that it is the U.S. now carrying out the vast majority of provocative
active measures and has the disregard for others complained of here. At least for the moment, however,
the U.S. can still hide much of its aggression using the vast financial resources provided by the
American people to the Defense Department to produce sophisticated propaganda and to bribe foreign
officials with foreign aid to look the other way from U.S. provocations.
It is ironic that today, one can learn more about the U.S. military and foreign policy from the
Rand Corporation only by reading at least one of its historical documents, "The Operational Code
of the Politburo." This is described as "part of a major effort at RAND to provide insight into
the political leadership and foreign policy in the Soviet Union and other communist states; the development
of Soviet military strategy and doctrine."
As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign
countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy.
That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort
into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided
by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. That this U.S.
MIC would turn against its own people, the American public, by waging perpetual information war against
this domestic target just to enrich their investors, might have been even more than Eisenhower could
imagine however.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in
November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel,
Office of Military Commissions. [This article first appeared at
http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2016/08/14/inciting-wars-american-way/]
"... And Mankiw was the economic adviser to Mitt Romney, the elitist Nazi who said 47% of the American people were his enemies and who was in favour of economic policies that would stripmine the country to put all its wealth in the offshore bank accounts of the kleptocrats. ..."
"... Which btw makes you wonder how anyone can call Mankiw an "economist". The guy's a Republican buttboy and that's all he is. ..."
"... Mankiw didn't enable the Republicans alone. Every two-bit intro macro prof who teaches from Mankiw has aided him. ..."
"... Real Time whatever at wsj are looking for reasons to keep the GOPster/free trade type progress going! A reason to oppose Trump and vote for Hillary? ..."
"... Trump is a very controversial figure, but he can be viewed as a disruptive politician and might put some pressure on neoliberal, and especially neocons, before they coopt him. Think of him as a proponent of Brexit II. Making the elections essentially a referendum on neoliberal globalization. ..."
"who has broken with many of the GOP's traditional positions on economic policy"
Not seeing much to like in "the GOP's traditional positions" where does this leave me? The
truth is all 45 surviving former members of the CEA can be wrong without making Trump right.
Indeed, see how far the US has "progressed" with these guys' advising since Nixon!
Decision Overload
When the deeply established insider "advisers" are against him, you can bet that he is an angry
outsider same as the rest of us. Look!
The most inefficient thing in our taxation system is the taxing of poor folks. Do you recognize
what that accomplishes? Poor folk taxation takes money away from the poor person's landlord, his
power company, his telephone company and more much more -- just slows down the economy plus administrative
overhead that is the cost of slamming on the brakes.
The Donald has proposed a $25,000 standard deduction which will protect the low-rollers who
have no deductions from tax-shelters. $50,000 for married couples! What a savings! What a relief
from the churning that has evolved from smoke and mirror politics.
"Harvard University economist Gregory Mankiw, who chaired the council under George W. Bush and
has been mentioned as a possible future Fed chairman, said recently on his blog that he would
not support Mr. Trump.
"I have Republican friends who think that things couldn't be worse than doubling down on Obama
policies under Hillary Clinton. And, like them, I am no fan of the left's agenda of large government
and high taxes," Mr. Mankiw wrote. "But they are wrong: Things could be worse. And I fear they
would be under Mr. Trump.""
Mankiw and Krugman mini-me Pro Growth Liberal agree on something.
And Mankiw was the economic adviser to Mitt Romney, the elitist Nazi who said 47% of the American
people were his enemies and who was in favour of economic policies that would stripmine the country
to put all its wealth in the offshore bank accounts of the kleptocrats.
Which btw makes you wonder how anyone can call Mankiw an "economist". The guy's a Republican
buttboy and that's all he is.
Mankiw didn't enable the Republicans alone. Every two-bit intro macro prof who teaches from
Mankiw has aided him.
I laugh when I imagine undergrad econ ten years from now: the textbooks will be full of Murray
Rothbard and Ayn Rand, and undergrad sessional lecturers will be drowning in cognitive dissonance
as they try to remain straight-faced while lecturing on the benefits of the gold standard and
eliminating the Federal Reserve.
pgl :
Stiglitz supports Clinton over Trump. No surprise but this is:
"I have known personally every Republican president since Richard Nixon," said Harvard University
economist Martin Feldstein, who chaired the council under President Ronald Reagan. "They all
showed a real understanding of economics and international affairs".
OK - Reagan did get a degree in economics but Krugman - who worked for Feldstein a the CEA
- tells a different story about this White House when it comes to macroeconomics, the role of
monetary policy, and in particular what was happening with the international aspects of our economy
during Reagan's first term. Volcker - once he was done with his damaging tight monetary policy
- tried to make a deal where he would lower interest rates in exchange for a reversal of that
1981 tax cut. The Reagan White House had no clue what the FED chair was even proposing even though
it would have been a very good idea.
ilsm :
Real Time whatever at wsj are looking for reasons to keep the GOPster/free trade type progress
going! A reason to oppose Trump and vote for Hillary?
Dowd is right! The best thuglican is a democrat.
likbez :
Hillary Clinton is dyed-in-wool neoliberal. So all she can do is to kick the can down the road.
All her elections promises are not worth the cost of the electrical energy that is used to depict
them on our screens.
Trump is a very controversial figure, but he can be viewed as a disruptive politician and
might put some pressure on neoliberal, and especially neocons, before they coopt him. Think of
him as a proponent of Brexit II. Making the elections essentially a referendum on neoliberal globalization.
If he wins, a lot of Washington neocon parasites might lose jobs (the cash for the neocons
comes mostly from defense contractors), that's why they crossed the party lines and that's why
neoliberal propaganda campaign against him is so vicious. Khan gambit was a nasty attempt to speedboat
him. It failed.
While Hillary gets a free pass from neoliberal press (ABC, CBS and NBC). Neoliberal presstitutes
(like George Stephanopoulos ) are especially vicious, behave like rabid dogs. Just listen to his
interview of Trump about Khan gambit at Democratic convention.
There is another view on Trump that deserves attention:
=== quote ===
Lupita 08.04.16 at 4:23 am 167
I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash
and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other
world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions,
by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus
a few well-placed bombs .
Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having
access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still
organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen
like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing
miserably, to the point of being counterproductive.
I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear
of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information
and communication than in 2008, even 2012.
=== end of quote ===
But it is the deep state that dictates the course of the US, both in foreign policy and domestically,
probably from 1963, so the president now is more of a ceremonial figure that adds legitimacy to
the actual rule of deep state.
In any case discussion Hillary vs. Trump and questions of economics (neoliberalism vs. some
retrenchment in the direction of the New Deal) we should not miss the key, defining this election
fact that Hillary is a war criminal (crimes against peace are war crimes). See
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nuremberg-trials
From this point of view voting for Hillary is highly undesirable as this is an implicit cooperation
with the war criminal. That does not mean that people should vote for Trump. Who has his own set
of warts.
It has been suggested the appropriators owned by the war profiteers won't allocate money to fuel
the transports that take America's Soldiers and Marines home.
The lesser evil killed no one with a vote believing in fake WMD's. The lesser evil is not experienced
in keeping the neocons happy.
The lesser evil may decide body bags forever is not strategy.
Trump is the lesser evil.
Imagine what happens if the commander in chief says: stand down and steam for Pearl Harbor,
San Diego and Alameda.
What would all those US retirees do if the commander in chief shuttered those brigades in Germany?
If the crooked DNC cared about families of US' slain.....
The Khan con angered 5990 Gold Star families who are not Muslim and whose star are the result
of Hillary voting for AUMF righteously and acting out since 2003.
As well as veterans!
Gold star families why not pick 1/5999 rather than 1/14 Muslims?
The latest ad from Hillary Clinton's campaign suggests that, if elected,
Donald Trump might launch nuclear weapons because he lacks the experience and
temperament to be president.
"In times of crisis, America depends
on steady leadership, clear thinking, and calm judgement," the narrator says.
"Because all it takes is one wrong move."
... ... ...
The strategy from the Clinton campaign is familiar. During the 2008 Democratic
primary fight with President Obama, Clinton released an ad questioning whether
the young senator would have the experience necessary to keep the country safe
when the
phone rang at 3 a.m.
I think to the extent Israel elite interests are congruent with interests of the US neocons Clinton
is pro-Israel. If they stray, she can change. The key here are interests of global corporations and
neoliberal globalization. As such Israel is just a pawn in a big game.
Notable quotes:
"... So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States. ..."
"... And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved ..."
"... Trump's crime, per Morell, is that he is disloyal to the United States because he is not sufficiently hostile to the evil Vladimir Putin, which somehow means that he is being manipulated by the clever Russian. Trump has indeed called for a positive working relationship with Putin to accomplish, among other objectives, the crushing of ISIS. And he is otherwise in favor of leaving Bashar al-Assad of Syria alone while also being disinclined to get involved in any additional military interventions in the Middle East or elsewhere, which pretty much makes him the antithesis of the Clintonian foreign policy promoted by Morell. ..."
"... The leading individual foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014 was Ukrainian Viktor Pinchuk, who "directed between $10 and $25 million" to its Global Initiative, has let the Clintons use his private jet, attended Bill's Hollywood 65 th birthday celebration and hosted daughter Chelsea and her husband on a trip to Ukraine. Pinchuk is a Jewish oligarch married to the daughter of notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma. He is very closely tied to Israel, a supporter of regime change in his country, who was simultaneously donating money and also lobbying in Washington while Hillary was Secretary of State and promoting a similar agenda as part of her $5 billion program to "democratize" Ukraine. Clinton arranged a dozen meetings with substantive State Department officers for Pinchuk. ..."
"... Clinton supported Israel's actions in the 2014 Gaza War, which killed more than 500 children, describing them as an appropriate response to a situation that was provoked by Hamas. On the campaign trail recently husband Bill disingenuously defended Hillary's position on Gaza, saying that "Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools " placing all the blame for the large number of civilian casualties on the Palestinians, not on the Israelis. When the media began to report on the plight of the civilians trapped in Gaza Hillary dismissed the impending humanitarian catastrophe, saying "They're trapped by their leadership, unfortunately." ..."
"... Earlier, as a Senator from New York, Hillary supported Israel's building of the separation barrier on Palestinian land and cheer-led a crowd at a pro-Israel rally that praised Israel's 2006 devastation of Lebanon and Gaza. She nonsensically characterized and justified the bombing campaign as "efforts to send messages to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom " More than nine hundred civilians died in the onslaught and when a vote came up subsequently in Congress to stop the supply of cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians Hillary voted against the bill together with 69 other pro-Israel senators. ..."
"... Hillary enjoys a particularly close relationship with Netanyahu, writing in November , "I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my first month in office." She has worked diligently to "reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu." She has boasted of her being one of the promoters of annual increases in aid to Israel while she was in the Senate and Secretary of State and takes credit for repeatedly using America's Security Council veto to defend it in the United Nations. ..."
"... o you know how Prince Bandar was coaching G.W. Bush to circumvent the enmity of neocons towards his father? ..."
"... It looks very much like the US public is starting to mirror the Eastern European public under Communism by automatically disregarding government media + there's the added feature of the internet as a new kind of high-powered Samizdat, that clearly worries the Establishment. ..."
On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled
his New York Times
op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump
had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer,
is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what
he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence
business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian
Federation."
I have previously
observed
how incomprehensible the designation of "unwitting agent" used in a sentence together with "recruited"
is, but perhaps I should add something more about Morell that might not be clear to the casual reader.
Morell was an Agency analyst, not a spy, who spent nearly his entire career in and around Washington.
The high point of his CIA experience consisted of briefing George W. Bush on the President's Daily
Brief (PDB).
Morell was not trained in the arduous CIA operational tradecraft course which agent recruiters
and handlers go through. This means that his understanding of intelligence operations and agents
is, to put it politely, derivative. If he had gone through the course he would understand that when
you recruit an agent you control him and tell him what to do. The agent might not know whom exactly
he is really answering to as in a false flag operation, but he cannot be unwitting.
Morell appears to have a tendency to make promises that others will have to deliver on, but perhaps
that's what delegation by senior U.S. government officials is all about. He was also not trained
in CIA paramilitary operations, which perhaps should be considered when he drops comments about the
desirability of "covertly" killing Russians and Iranians to make a point that they should not oppose
U.S. policies in Syria, as he did in a
softball interview with Charlie Rose on August 6th.
Morell appears to be oblivious to the possibility that going around assassinating foreigners might
be regarded as state sponsored terrorism and could well ignite World War 3. And, as is characteristic
of chickenhawks, it is highly unlikely that he was intending that either he or his immediate family
should go out and cut the throats or blow the heads off of those foreign devils who seek to derail
the Pax Americana. Nor would he expect to be in the firing line when the relatives of those victims
seek revenge. Someone else with the proper training would be found to do all that messy stuff and
take the consequences.
Be that as it may, Morell was a very senior officer and perhaps we should accept that he might
know something that the rest of us have missed, so let's just assume that he kind of misspoke and
give him a pass on the "recruited unwitting agent" expression. Instead let's look for other American
political figures who just might be either deliberately or inadvertently serving the interests of
a foreign government, which is presumably actually what Michael Morell meant to convey regarding
Trump. To be sure a well-run McCarthy-esque ferreting out of individuals who just might be disloyal
provides an excellent opportunity to undertake a purge of those who either by thought, word or deed
might be guilty of unacceptable levels of coziness with foreign interests.
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there
are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and
very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively,
often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer,
Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman,
Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are
major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely
condemned January 2001 last minute
pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons,
to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved.
The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be
described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they
have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to
Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political
prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
Trump's crime, per Morell, is that he is disloyal to the United States because he is not sufficiently
hostile to the evil Vladimir Putin, which somehow means that he is being manipulated by the clever
Russian. Trump has indeed called for a positive working relationship with Putin to accomplish, among
other objectives, the crushing of ISIS. And he is otherwise in favor of leaving Bashar al-Assad of
Syria alone while also being disinclined to get involved in any additional military interventions
in the Middle East or elsewhere, which pretty much makes him the antithesis of the Clintonian foreign
policy promoted by Morell.
In comparison with the deeply and profoundly corrupt Clintons, Trump's alleged foreign policy
perfidy makes him appear to be pretty much a boy scout. To understand the Clintons one might consider
the hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it from foreign sources, that have flowed into the Clinton
Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. And there is the clear
email evidence that Hillary exploited her government position to favor both foreign and domestic
financial supporters.
The leading
individual foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014 was Ukrainian Viktor
Pinchuk,
who "directed between $10 and $25 million" to its Global Initiative, has let the Clintons use
his private jet, attended Bill's Hollywood 65th birthday celebration and hosted daughter
Chelsea and her husband on a trip to Ukraine. Pinchuk is a Jewish oligarch married to the daughter
of notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma. He is very closely tied to Israel,
a supporter of regime change in his country, who was simultaneously
donating money and also lobbying in Washington while Hillary was Secretary of State and promoting
a similar agenda as part of her $5 billion program to "democratize" Ukraine. Clinton arranged a dozen
meetings with substantive State Department officers for Pinchuk.
Hillary and Bill's predilection for all things Israeli and her promise to do even more in the
future is a matter of public record. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz asserted
that of all the political candidates in the primaries "Clinton had the longest public record of engagement
with Israel, and has spent decades diligently defending the Jewish state." In a speech to AIPAC in
March
she promised to take the "U.S.-Israel alliance to the next level." Hillary's current principal
financial supporter in her presidential run is Haim Saban, an Israeli who has described himself as
a "one issue" guy and that issue is Israel.
Hillary Clinton boasts of having "stood with Israel my entire career." Her website
promises to maintain "Israel's qualitative military edge to ensure the IDF is equipped to deter
and defeat aggression from the full spectrum of threats," "stand up against the boycott, divestment
and sanctions movement (BDS)," and "cut off efforts to unilaterally recognize Palestinian statehood
outside of the context of negotiations with Israel." In a letter to Haim Saban, Hillary
declared that "we need to make countering BDS a priority," which means she is prepared to support
laws limiting First Amendment rights in the U.S. in defense of perceived Israeli interests.
As part of the Obama Administration Hillary Clinton at first supported his attempts to pressure
Israel over its illegal settlements but has now backed off from that position, only rarely criticizing
them as a "problem" but never advocating any steps to persuade Netanyahu to reverse his policy. Notably,
she has repeatedly decried terroristic attacks on Israelis but has never acknowledged the brutality
of the Israeli occupation of much of the West Bank in spite of the fact that ten Palestinians are
killed for each Jewish victim of the ongoing violence.
Clinton supported Israel's actions in the 2014 Gaza War, which killed more than 500 children,
describing them as an appropriate response to a situation that was provoked by Hamas. On the campaign
trail recently husband Bill disingenuously
defended Hillary's position on Gaza, saying that "Hamas is really smart. When they decide to
rocket Israel they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools " placing all the blame
for the large number of civilian casualties on the Palestinians, not on the Israelis. When the media
began to report on the plight of the civilians trapped in Gaza Hillary dismissed the impending humanitarian
catastrophe, saying "They're trapped by their leadership, unfortunately."
Earlier, as a Senator from New York, Hillary supported Israel's building of the separation
barrier on Palestinian land and cheer-led a crowd at a pro-Israel rally that praised Israel's 2006
devastation of Lebanon and Gaza. She nonsensically
characterized and justified the bombing campaign as "efforts to send messages to Hamas, Hezbollah,
to the Syrians, to the Iranians to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom "
More than nine hundred civilians died in the onslaught and when a vote came up subsequently in Congress
to stop the supply of cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians Hillary voted against
the bill together with 69 other pro-Israel senators.
Hillary enjoys a particularly close relationship with Netanyahu,
writing in November, "I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my
first month in office." She has worked diligently to "reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel
and Benjamin Netanyahu." She has boasted of her being one of the promoters of annual increases in
aid to Israel while she was in the Senate and Secretary of State and takes credit for repeatedly
using America's Security Council veto to defend it in the United Nations.
So I think it is pretty clear who is the presidential candidate promoting the interests of a foreign
country and it ain't Trump. Hillary would no doubt argue that Israel is a friend and Russia is not,
an interesting point of view as Israel is not in fact an ally and has spied on us and copied our
military technology
to re-export to countries like China. Indeed, the most damaging spy in U.S. history Jonathan
Pollard worked for Israel. In spite of all that Israel continues to tap our treasury for billions
of dollars a year while still ignoring Washington when requests are made to moderate policies that
damage American interests. Against that, what exactly has Moscow done to harm us since the Cold War
ended? And who is advocating even more pressure on Russia and increasing the rewards for Israel,
presumably in the completely illogical belief that to do so will somehow bring some benefit to the
American people? Hillary Clinton.
utu, August 23, 2016 at 4:29 am GMT 100 Words
Find the true reason why G.H. Bush was not allowed to get the 2nd term. Do you remember his
attempt to reign in Yitzhak Shamir when GHB was riding high popularity wave after the Desert Storm?
Do you remember anti-Bush Safire and Friedman columns in NYT week after week? Why Ross Perrot
was called in? Don't you see similarity with Teddy Rosevelt's run to prevent Taft's reelection
and securing Wilson's win? Do you know how Prince Bandar was coaching G.W. Bush to circumvent
the enmity of neocons towards his father? Answer these questions and you will know for whom
Bill Clinton worked. One more thing, Clinton did not touch Palestinian issue until last several
months of his presidency. He did not make G.H. Bush's mistake.
Miro23, August 23, 2016 at 5:45 am GMT 100 Words
This a straightforward factual article about the Clinton sellout to Israel. So the question
may come down to the effectiveness of MSM propaganda.
It looks very much like the US public is starting to mirror the Eastern European public
under Communism by automatically disregarding government media + there's the added feature of
the internet as a new kind of high-powered Samizdat, that clearly worries the Establishment.
If the script follows through, then there's a good likelihood that the Establishment and their
faηade players (Clintons, Bush, Romney, McCain etc) are reaching the end of the line, since like
in E.Europe, there's a background problem of economic failure and extreme ιlite/public inequality
that can no longer be hidden.
Philip Giraldi, August 23, 2016 at 10:32 am GMT 100 Words
@hbm
hbm the FBI concluded that someone working in the White House was MEGA but they decided that
they did not necessarily have enough evidence to convince a jury. He is still around and appears
in the media. As I would prefer not to get sued I will not name him but he is not a Clinton (though
he worked for them as well as for the two Bushes).
"... You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. ..."
"... But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics. ..."
"... A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. ..."
"... A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. ..."
"... Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished). ..."
"... Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first. ..."
"... There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states. ..."
"... Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. ..."
"... Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride." ..."
You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas indeed
virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign
trail. Hillary Clinton's many liberal (and sadly, progressive) supporters routinely steer away
from anything related to foreign policy, talk, talk, talking instead about the candidate's "experience",
with obligatory nods toward her enlightened social programs. There is only the ritual
demonization of that fearsome dictator, Vladimir Putin, reputedly on the verge of invading some hapless
European country. Even Bernie Sanders' sorry endorsement of his erstwhile enemy, not
long ago denounced as a tool of Wall Street, had nothing to say about global issues.
But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be
expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence
is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics.
A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump,
could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East,
Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record
as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the
war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by
"U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers.
Under Clinton, the Democrats might well be better positioned to recharge their historical
legacy as War Party. One of the great political myths (and there are many) is that American liberals
are inclined toward a less belligerent foreign policy than Republicans, are less militaristic and
more favorable toward "diplomacy". References to Woodrow Wilson in World War I and Mexico, Harry
Truman in Korea, JFK and LBJ in Indochina, Bill Clinton in the Balkans, and of course Barack Obama
in Afghanistan (eight years of futile warfare), Libya (also "Hillary's War"), and scattered operations
across the Middle East and North Africa should be enough to dispel such nonsense. (As for FDR and
World War II, I have written extensively that the Pearl Harbor attacks were deliberately provoked
by U.S. actions in the Pacific but that is a more complicated story.)
... ... ...
A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle
and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival
military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime
change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war,
combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos
and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. There are currently
no visible signs she would exit the protracted and criminal war in Afghanistan, a rich source of
blowback (alongside Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Israel). Increased aerial bombardments against
ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere? More deployments of American troops on the ground?
Such ventures, with potentially others on the horizon, amount to elaborate recipes for more
blowback, followed by more anti-terror hysteria, followed by more interventions.
Uncompromising economic, diplomatic, and military support of Israeli atrocities in Palestine?
Aggressive pursuit of the seriously mistaken "Asian Pivot", strategy, a revitalized effort to subvert
Chinese economic and military power one of Clinton's own special crusades? No wonder the Paul Wolfowitzes
and Robert Kagans are delighted to join the Hillary camp.
No wonder, too, that billionaire super-hawk Haim Saban has pledged to spend whatever is needed
to get the Clintons back into the White House, convinced her presidency will do anything to maintain
Palestinian colonial subjugation. Meeting with Saban in July, Hillary again promised to "oppose any
effort to delegitimate Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment,
and Sanctions movement." She backs legislative efforts begun in several states to silence and blacklist
people working on behalf of Palestinian rights. For this her celebrated "pragmatism" could work quite
effectively.
Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring
familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not
going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where
open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses
the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers
routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will
destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished).
Amidst the turmoil Trump has oddly surfaced to the left of Clinton on several key global
issues: cooperating instead of fighting with the Russians, keeping alive a sharp criticism of the
Iraq war and the sustained regional chaos and blowback it generated, ramping down enthusiasm for
more wars in the Middle East, junking "free trade" agreements, willingness to rethink the outmoded
NATO alliance. If Trump, however haphazardly, manages to grasp the historical dynamics of blowback,
the Clinton camp remains either indifferent or clueless, still ready for new armed ventures cynically
marketed, as in the Balkans, Iraq, and Libya, on the moral imperative of defeating some unspeakable
evil, usually a "new Hitler" waging a "new genocide". Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's
domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence?
The Pentagon, after all, always comes first.
... ... ...
...At the other extreme, Clinton emerges in the media as the most "rational" and "even-tempered"
of candidates, ideally suited to carry out the necessary imperial agendas. A tiresome mainstream
narrative is that Hillary is "one of the best prepared and most knowledgeable candidates ever to
seek the presidency." And she is smart, very smart whatever her flaws. All the better
to follow in the long history of Democrats proficient at showing the world who is boss. The
media, for its part, adores these Democrats, another reason Trump appears to have diminished chances
of winning. Further, the well-funded and tightly-organized Clinton machine can count on somewhat
large majorities of women, blacks, and Hispanics, not only for the march to the White House but,
more ominously, to go along with the War Party's imperial spectacle of the day. Most anything war,
regime change, bombing raids, drone strikes, treaty violations, JFK-style "standoffs" can escape
political scrutiny if carried out by "humanitarian", peace-loving Democrats. Bill Clinton's
war to fight "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, cover for just another U.S./NATO geopolitical
maneuver, constitutes the perfect template here.
There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism.
They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in
the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have
intimate ties to reactionary global forces the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia,
other Gulf states.
... In March 121 members of the Republican "national security community", including the warmongers
Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Brent Scowcroft, signed a public letter condemning Trump for not being
sufficiently dedicated to American (also Israeli?) interests. Trump compounded his predicament by
stubbornly refusing to pay homage to the "experts" the same foreign-policy geniuses who helped
orchestrate the Iraq debacle. A more recent (and more urgent) letter with roughly the same message
has made its way into the public sphere. Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee
American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the
Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.
Returning to the political carneval that was the Democratic convention, amidst all the non-stop
flag-waving and shouts of "USA!" Hillary made what she thought would be an inspiring reference to
Jackie Kennedy, speaking on the eve of her husband's (1961) ascent to the White House. Jackie was
reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that
a war might be started not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones
moved by fear and pride."
We can surmise that JFK was one of those "big men" governed
by "restraint". History shows, however, that Jackie's esteemed husband was architect
of probably the worst episode of international barbarism in U.S. history the Vietnam War, with
its unfathomable death and destruction coming at a time of the Big Man's botched CIA-led invasion
of Cuba and followed closely by the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the Big Man's "restraint" brought
the world frighteningly close to nuclear catastrophe. As for "fear" and "pride" nothing permeates
JFK's biography of that period more than those two psychological obsessions.
Could it be that Hillary Clinton, however unwittingly, was at this epic moment her breakthrough
nomination revealing nothing so much as her own deeply-imperialist mind-set?
Carl Boggs is the author of The Hollywood War Machine, with
Tom Pollard (second edition, forthcoming), and Drugs, Power, and Politics, both published by
Paradigm.
"... "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea." ..."
"... Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous. ..."
"... Gen. Wesley Clark standing off against Russians at Belgrade and the missile attack on the Chinese embassy and the bombing of Bulgaria. ..."
"... Under Obama, support for fascists in Ukraine, near war over chemical weapons in Syria, gunboat diplomacy in South China Sea, shift to preemptive war plans against North Korea, ground troops in Libya and other parts of Africa, and last but not least, blind support for the psychotic Saudi attack on Yemen. ..."
"... Democrat or Republican, it is the US system of government which is militarist and adventurist. It will not change if either Clinton or Trump is elected, the delusions of Putin et al. notwithstanding. It wouldn't change if Bernie or the rational libertarian of the month was elected either because they do not, didn't and never will stand for real change. Criticizing Clinton and Trump from the right will make sure there is not even a chance of political realignment. At this point, the question is whether that's the point? ..."
BW: "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal
pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's
bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine,
NATO expansion or the South China Sea."
Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to
have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would
presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or
having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as
an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through
proxies or they're too dangerous.
For the larger question of whether these comment threads are a good place
to campaign or advocate, I sort of come down in a different place than you
do. If these comment threads were about good-faith argument, then sure this
kind of advocacy might be bad, but I don't think that most people here are
capable of good-faith argument even if they were attempting it (most of
the time they aren't attempting it). In that case the comment threads serve
an alternate purpose of seeing what kinds of beliefs are out there, at least
among the limited group of people likely to comment on CT threads. Of course
people can be kicked out if they habitually make the threads too difficult
to moderate (or really, for whatever other reason an OP decides on), but
the well has long since been poisoned and one more drop isn't really going
to do much more damage.
Gen. Wesley Clark standing off against Russians at Belgrade and the
missile attack on the Chinese embassy and the bombing of Bulgaria.
Under Obama, support for fascists in Ukraine, near war over chemical
weapons in Syria, gunboat diplomacy in South China Sea, shift to preemptive
war plans against North Korea, ground troops in Libya and other parts of
Africa, and last but not least, blind support for the psychotic Saudi attack
on Yemen.
None of which was unilaterally determined by Clinton who was nothing
but Secretary of State, who does not determine foreign policy anyhow, or
took place after her tenure. Renovation of the nuclear weapons stockpile
isn't her doing either.
Democrat or Republican, it is the US system of government which is
militarist and adventurist. It will not change if either Clinton or Trump
is elected, the delusions of Putin et al. notwithstanding. It wouldn't change
if Bernie or the rational libertarian of the month was elected either because
they do not, didn't and never will stand for real change. Criticizing Clinton
and Trump from the right will make sure there is not even a chance of political
realignment. At this point, the question is whether that's the point?
"... Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A ..."
"... We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be." ..."
"... "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions." ..."
"... The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice. ..."
"... why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? ..."
Mark Lasser (CO): "Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader
speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start
the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A.'"
Carole Levers (CA): " I was harassed by five Hillary delegates who got in my face while I was
sitting in my seat. They told me that we needed to quit chanting, go home, and that we did not belong
there. They added that by chanting "No More Wars" we were disrespecting the veterans. I replied that
none of us were disrespecting the veterans. We were honoring them by NOT WANTING ANY MORE DEAD VETERANS,
killed in illegal wars for the profits of the wealthy. I reiterated that we were exercising our first
amendment rights to which one replied that WE (Bernie delegates) had no rights. I was later shoved
by a Hillary delegate into the metal frame of the seats."
Carol
Cizauskas (NV): "We heard other Bernie delegates chanting "No more war" and then the "opposing
team" of Hillary delegates thundering over those chants with "USA." It was darkly eerie. We discussed
how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted
to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas,
said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses
to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be."
#SlayTheSmaugs (NY): "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so
many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note,
No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to
make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions."
Lauren Steiner (CA): "[Clinton supporters] decided to chant with us when we chanted 'Black Lives
Matter.' But for some reason, they found 'No More War' to be offensive and shouted "USA" right after.
At first, I was puzzled by the fact that they were shouting exactly what Trump supporters shout at
his rallies. Then, after all the bellicose speeches and the fact that they had so many Republicans
endorsing Clinton, it hit me that perhaps it was because they were courting Republicans now. They
didn't care about our support anymore."
Ike, August 18, 2016 at 1:02 pm
I am reading Primary Colors by Anonymous. It is entertaining as well as reaffirming a suspected
baseline of conduct.
Lambert Strether, August 18, 2016 at 1:11 pm
Primary Colors (by Joke Line (Joe Klein)) is terrific. The movie is good too. I am so happy
and amazed that I live in a world where John Travolta plays Bill Clinton in a movie.
Jeremy Grimm, August 18, 2016 at 1:31 pm
The harassment and dirty tricks pulled against the Sanders people - as described in these collected
reports - leaves me wondering whether Sanders actually won the nomination. It would have been
much more politic for the Hillary people to let the Sanders delegates blow off steam and wait
until the nomination and end of the convention to circle the wagons in "unity". If Hillary clearly
won the nomination then the stupidity and arrogance in team Hillary's treatment of the Sanders
people speaks to a new level of disdain for the 99%. The business about the $700 hotels and the
misinformation and lack of information provided from team Sanders raises other questions.
trent, August 18, 2016 at 2:17 pm
Wow, all those testimonials from the democrat convention are an eye opener, for some. Hillary's
soft Nazism on full display for any of the still true believers. Yet the press calls trump the
Nazi. Trump is crazy, but its almost an honest craziness compared to Hillary. She's nuts, but
manipulates everything she can to hide it. I'll take out in the open crazy, easier to plan for.
EoinW, August 19, 2016 at 8:51 am
I haven't voted in years. In Canada, however, we've never been given a choice on anything.
Doesn't matter if the election is federal, provincial or municipal, no issues just personalities.
The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or
not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia,
or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice.
But why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without
a nuclear war? Speculating on global warming or third party movements kind of lose their
significance during a nuclear winter.
Patricia
This young woman turned it into a tale, "The Bullshittery of the DNC":
"... Congrats! The author discovered the obvious: Hillary is a warmongering neocon willing to pursue totally suicidal policy with Russia. She is not called "Mrs. WWIII" for nothing. If we are to survive, this monster should be nowhere near the White House. ..."
"... Hillary just follows the money, preferring the consensus between AIPAC and Saudis. The buyers and the goods they buy are all disgusting. ..."
"... While Russia (and this author) may (correctly) believe that fighting terrorism is a common interest of Russia and the US, the fact is, the US has no interest in fighting terrorism. Long ago Bush openly declared that he is not concerned about Osama bin Laden, and Obama continues to arm the so-called moderates, who are really a faction of al Qaeda. These neocon regime change wars are not about terrorism -- except in the sense that the US uses terrorist factions to attempt to overthrow legitimate leaders like Assad and Gaddafi. Rather than fighting terrorism, the US uses it as a weapon. The Russians are playing by one set of rules, but the US is using another. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton was instrumental in pushing for the Invasion of Iraq, which turned what was essentially a functional state into an ISIS hellhole. As Secretary of State, she was THE personality behind the destruction of Libya, now another Islamist breeding machine with a ruined economy & brutalized population. She has done everything in her power to destabilize Syria & has succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. Now millions of economic migrants are flooding into Europe, which will likely become a Caliphate under Sharia law within 100 years. Clinton's hands are soaked in blood of tens of thousands of men, women, & children. Her thirst for more is unquenchable. She is as much of a war criminal as her hero & good friend Henry Kissinger. All the media can do is scream endless unfounded accusations of Trump being a racist, yet they never mention a whisper of what Clinton has done & intends to do. ..."
"... Trump has shown he is not a captive to the foreign policy consensus of the economic, social, and political elite of the New York-Wash DC beltway. He does not believe in intervention anywhere and everywhere. That I heartily endorse. ..."
One especially disturbing trend in global affairs is the marked deterioration in relations between
the United States and Russia. Much will depend on the outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election.
Donald Trump has staked out a reasonably conciliatory policy toward Moscow. And in the highly improbable
event that Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson emerged victorious, the United States would certainly
pursue a less interventionist, confrontational
foreign policy toward Russia as well as other countries.
But
Trump and a handful of
otherdissenters
have triggered the
wrath of the foreign-policy establishment by daring to suggest that Washington's Russia policy
may be unwise and that the two countries have important
mutual interests. Most anti-Russian hawks are backing Hillary Clinton, and the implications of
a Clinton victory are extremely ominous. When Russia annexed Crimea, Clinton
compared Russian president Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler-a comparison so extreme that it drew
dissents even from some usual
supporters. Yet there is no doubt that she would take a very hard line toward Moscow. Among other
things, Clinton recommended that the United States impose a
no-fly
zone in Syria despite the risk that it could mean shooting down Russian military aircraft that were
operating at the request of the Syrian government. Anyone who is that reckless is not likely to retreat
from confrontations in eastern Europe or other arenas. Indeed, she has already called for not only
more financial assistance but more
military aid to Ukraine.
... ... ...
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato
Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of 10 books and more
than 600 articles on international affairs.
Informed 2 days ago
Congrats! The author discovered the obvious: Hillary is a warmongering neocon willing
to pursue totally suicidal policy with Russia. She is not called "Mrs. WWIII" for nothing. If
we are to survive, this monster should be nowhere near the White House.
Anthony Informed 2 days ago
It's not her it's George Soros he's funding her and Merkel two of the most pathetic
politicians I've seen especially dopey Merkel. Soros is also funding blm and a Arab version in
israel look at the leaked emails. If you don't know sata... I mean soros then you should just
type his name into Google he sold his own people out to Hitler and said it was the best thing
he ever did enough said
Informed Anthony 2 days ago
You might be right. Soros looks like he had died already, but he is as greedy as ever.
Looks like he plans to bribe God almighty: otherwise why would he need so much money so late
in his life? Soros or CIA must have something really damning on Merkel: she is consistently
working against her own country for more than two years now. Hillary just follows the
money, preferring the consensus between AIPAC and Saudis. The buyers and the goods they buy
are all disgusting.
donnasaggia 7 hours ago
We need to shift the analysis somewhat. While Russia (and this author) may (correctly)
believe that fighting terrorism is a common interest of Russia and the US, the fact is, the US
has no interest in fighting terrorism. Long ago Bush openly declared that he is not concerned
about Osama bin Laden, and Obama continues to arm the so-called moderates, who are really a
faction of al Qaeda. These neocon regime change wars are not about terrorism -- except in the
sense that the US uses terrorist factions to attempt to overthrow legitimate leaders like
Assad and Gaddafi. Rather than fighting terrorism, the US uses it as a weapon. The Russians
are playing by one set of rules, but the US is using another.
Frank Blangeard a day ago
There will be no 'second Cold War' because the United States never ended the first Cold War.
alan Frank Blangeard a day ago
Amen, brother!
alan a day ago
No other country on earth, save Israel, has legitimate interests or security concerns other than
the United States. No spheres other than the western hemispheric one under the control of the US
are ever to be considered acceptable. This arrogant hegemon is headed for a fall. Preferably,
since I am an American I hope it will be a long slow peaceful one. Athens was as arrogant as the
American empire. Athens was defeated by a coalition led by Sparta.
Joe Stevens alan a day ago
Pride always comes before the fall. In this case, it will be a big fall!
ApqIA 2 days ago
A needed countermeasure, a difficult one, even unlikely -- but it would stand a chance of
deterring the US' insane ambitions.
A full military alliance between Russia and China, with integrated conventional and nuclear
forces, that would consider an attack on one an attack on both, and a two-nation nuclear
retaliation for any nuclear attack. The alliance could also offer membership to other threatened
nations, such as Iran.
Would include technology transfers between the two partners, which among other things would
assure China of adequate engines for its aircraft. Perhaps joint business ventures would ease
Russian unease at losing business: they can sell armaments together.
The US points nuclear warheads at both nations, so the US constitutes a credible existential
threat to both nations.
Its depraved, aggressive idea of global "leadership" is a threat to all humanity, and any and all
measures to deter it are worth the effort.
Want evidence? Here's its OWN map of the world, divided into American military provinces.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
This development would confront Washington with something like Hitchcock's "Birds" scenario --
how many "fronts" can the US fight in at once? scenario. The Eurasian land mass is a vast,
impregnable fortress and US military planners already despair at Russian mobile nukes.
Unfortunately, only even greater insanity can really hope to deter the American lunatics and
self-absordbed interventionists like Hillary.
ApqIA -> Duane a day ago
Georgia was a US-sponsored comic opera.
Syria was an attempt to use terrorists to get rid of Assad. Failing.
Ukraine was an attempt to get Ukraine in NATO, taking Crimea was a step to avoid a NATO
base in the Black Sea.
Since before Pearl Harbor, the US has employed the tactic of creating a situation where an
opponent has to choose an unacceptable outcome or use force.
What's the rate for a US-salaried troll?
Bilguun Khurelbaatar -> ApqIA 12 hours ago
Actually I believe that all those who call others as "Russian troll" are mostly Ukrainian
trolls. It's easy to find them, they call everyone, even neutral minded people as putin troll,
and all they demand is to arm Ukraine, nuke Russia etc...
Robert Willis 18 hours ago
Excellent article. Hillary Clinton was instrumental in pushing for the Invasion of
Iraq, which turned what was essentially a functional state into an ISIS hellhole. As Secretary
of State, she was THE personality behind the destruction of Libya, now another Islamist
breeding machine with a ruined economy & brutalized population. She has done everything in her
power to destabilize Syria & has succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. Now millions of economic
migrants are flooding into Europe, which will likely become a Caliphate under Sharia law
within 100 years. Clinton's hands are soaked in blood of tens of thousands of men, women, &
children. Her thirst for more is unquenchable. She is as much of a war criminal as her hero &
good friend Henry Kissinger. All the media can do is scream endless unfounded accusations of
Trump being a racist, yet they never mention a whisper of what Clinton has done & intends to
do.
deliaruhe 19 hours ago
"Unfortunately, given the growing probability of a Clinton victory in November,
U.S.-Russian relations, already in bad shape, are likely to deteriorate further."
Hillary isn't exactly known for her wisdom and judgement (especially in her choice of role
models and mentors--i.e., Albright and Kissinger), and she's very good at shooting herself in
the foot on a regular basis (e.g., her Putin-as-Hitler hyperbole). She will soon become the
imperial president of an empire in decline, and empires in decline are at their most
dangerous.
I think this will end up being the saddest American election ever.
(Excellent article, by the way.)
Dank Lastname 2 days ago
If Hillary dragged NATO into a war with Russia her incompetent leadership would see the
collapse of the US and the Russian occupation of Eastern Europe.
Mikhailovich 15 hours ago
When the money is your god and financial elite employs politicians to run the country, what
else we can expect? It looks the American militarism can be tamed by efficient nuclear
deterrent or other major power and there are no other way to avoid big war.
alan -> JPH a day ago
That's the tragedy of the situation. Trump has shown he is not a captive to the foreign
policy consensus of the economic, social, and political elite of the New York-Wash DC beltway.
He does not believe in intervention anywhere and everywhere. That I heartily endorse. On
all other points he is totally unqualified and unacceptable. We are left with a war-mongering
Neo-Con thug. When She takes office, begin the countdown---war is coming, a very big war
"... Hillary Clinton's respect for Kissinger has been noted before I think, and it's awful. Even if she were free of that shithead, though, her current goal is to demolish Trump. Voices on the GOP side really are important to erode his support not just among voters but within the party and the donor base. This could be a historic walloping. If monsters can help the effort to flip the senate, court the monsters. ..."
Ah, it's official: Clinton is actively seeking Henry Kissinger's endorsement. The man who helped
scuttle the peace talks in 1968, prolonging the Vietnam War by seven years, at the cost of hundreds
of thousands of lives. Who was at the heart of the secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos-personally
selecting targets for bomber runs-which led to the destabilization of Cambodia and ultimately the
Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide. Who firmly backed the Pakistani military in its genocidal
slaughter in Bangladesh. As Greg Grandin, whose book about Kissinger is must-reading, wrote not so
long ago, "The full tally hasn't been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe
4 million deaths to Kissinger's actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern
Africa."
This is the man whose support Hillary wants. Because Kissinger sways so many votes in Ohio or
Georgia? No, because he's prudential, realistic, respectable, unlike that irresponsible reckless
madman Donald Trump.
A glance at the Politico piece reveals it's a bit vague on the details, saying that, according
to an unnamed source, the Clinton campaign has "sent out feelers" to Kissinger, Baker, Schultz,
and Rice. But yeah, that's a mistake. Her campaign doesn't need them, and why HRC does not do
everything to keep her distance from Kissinger - I mean as a political matter (if they want to
be on friendly terms in private life, I guess that's their business) - is mystifying. Maybe Bill
Clinton, who attended anti-Vietnam War protests in London while a student at Oxford, shd have
a long talk w/ HRC about the period. Since, though she lived through it, it apparently did not
make that much of an impact. Anyway, I'd be surprised if Kissinger ends up publicly endorsing
her.
This is the man whose support Hillary wants. Because Kissinger sways so many votes in Ohio
or Georgia? No, because he's prudential, realistic, respectable, unlike that irresponsible
reckless madman Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton's respect for Kissinger has been noted before I think, and it's awful. Even
if she were free of that shithead, though, her current goal is to demolish Trump. Voices on the
GOP side really are important to erode his support not just among voters but within the party
and the donor base. This could be a historic walloping. If monsters can help the effort to flip
the senate, court the monsters.
It's really not mystifying. Clinton has long courted that imprimatur of foreign policy mainstream
respectability, and while the origins of that courting may have been instrumental and strategic,
pure political calculation, it has since become a part of her political identity. I don't this
is cynicism anymore; she believes it.
Meanwhile, the poll numbers keep climbing for her. Virtually every mainstream journalist now
recognizes what some of us have been saying for months. Absent a "miracle," as Rothenberg says
here, Trump will be squashed.
"For Michael Morell, as with many other CIA careerists, his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing
his boss and not antagonizing the White House" His loyalty is to qhoewver occupies White House, not
necessarily to the truth. "Morell [was] at the center of two key fiascoes: he "coordinated the
CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 address to the United Nations
and he served as the regular CIA briefer to President George W. Bush. Putting Access Before Honesty"
Rise of Another CIA Yes Man Consortiumnews
Notable quotes:
"... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
"... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
"... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump,
well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times
op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr.
Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an
agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from
a control officer.
However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make
the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such
an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder"
of ISIS.
Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher
and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in
an article
titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence
officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder
of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods
in all four of CIA's main directorates.
"... "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity." ..."
"... Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out , it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one ..."
"... As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists , helped topple Moammar Gaddafi , expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state . Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria. ..."
"... Psychology Today ..."
"... Ted Rall , syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net ..."
"... is the author of the book " Snowden ," the biography of the NSA whistleblower. ..."
There is, on the other hand, something wonderfully refreshing about Donald Trump's gleeful deployment
of the S-word.
"She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said,
referring
to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt,
what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries
of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds
of thousands of people with her stupidity."
Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million
people. As I've pointed out,
it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one, since anyone with a half a brain could
see at the time that Saddam probably didn't have WMDs, and that Bush's war would be a disaster.
Let Hillary's supporters take offense. How is unfair, wrong or intemperate to call out a foreign
policy record that fits the dictionary definition of "stupid" - doing the same thing over and over,
even though it never works? Stupid is as stupid
does. Hillary is stupid, especially on foreign policy, and Trump is right to say so.
Winner or loser, Trump has done political debate in America a huge favor by freeing "stupid" from
the rhetorical prison of words and phrases polite people aren't allowed to use.
Interestingly, stupid people aren't all losers and losers aren't always stupid in Trumpworld.
Hillary Clinton has one hell of a resume, which she has parlayed into a
big pile of cash. She is, by Trump standards, a winner (albeit a stupid one). If I met Trump,
I'd ask him if a smart person can be a loser (possible example: he
called the obviously smart Russell Brand a loser, but also a "dummy").
Pre-Trump, American politics and culture suffered from a lack of stupid-calling. I am serious.
"There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western
countries," Ray Williams
wrote last year in Psychology Today. Insults reflect a society's values. Americans value
macho masculinity, good looks and youth, so our top slurs accuse their victims of being effeminate,
weak, ugly, fat, old and outdated. In France, where the life of the mind is prized so much that one
of the nation's
top-rated
TV shows featured philosophers and auteurs discussing politics and culture over cigarettes, there
are few things worse than being called stupid and having it stick. A society that ranks "stupid"
as of its worst insults lets it be known that being smart is at least as important as being tough
or hot or buff.
So, Donald Trump, thanks for dropping those S-bombs.
Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for
ANewDomain.net, is the author of the book "Snowden,"
the biography of the NSA whistleblower.
This is what "New
American Militarism" the term coined by Bacevich is about. And it reflect dominance of jingoism
among Washington bureaucrats -- war is a source of money and career advancement.
Notable quotes:
"... At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, ..."
"... he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations a dubious distinction if there ever was one. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent." ..."
"... For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [nonexistent] WMD. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013. ..."
"... Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of US intelligence in the Twenty-first Century and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President. ..."
"... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
"... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
"... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
Perhaps former CIA acting director Michael Morell's shamefully provocative rhetoric toward Russia
and Iran will prove too unhinged even for Hillary Clinton. It appears equally likely that it will
succeed in earning him a senior job in a possible Clinton administration, so it behooves us to have
a closer look at Morell's record.
My initial reaction of disbelief and anger was the same as that
of my VIPS colleague, Larry Johnson, and
the points Larry made about Morell's behavior in the Benghazi caper, Iran, Syria, needlessly
baiting nuclear-armed Russia, and how to put a "scare" into Bashar al-Assad give ample support to
Larry's characterization of Morell's comments as "reckless and vapid." What follows is an attempt
to round out the picture on the ambitious 57-year-old Morell.
I suppose we need to start with Morell telling PBS/CBS interviewer Charlie Rose on Aug. 8 that
he (Morell) wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. make the Russians pay a price in
Syria."
Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"
Morell: "Yeah."
Rose: "And killing Iranians?"
Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran."
You might ask what excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose?
It was a highly unusual Aug. 5 New York Times
op-ed titled "I ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton."
Peabody award winner Rose having made no secret of how much he admires the glib, smooth-talking
Morell performed true to form. Indeed, he has interviewed him every other month, on average, over
the past two years, while Morell has been a national security analyst for CBS.
This interview,
though, is a must for those interested in gauging the caliber of bureaucrats who have bubbled to
the top of the CIA since the disastrous tenure of George Tenet (sorry, the interview goes on and
on for 46 minutes).
A Heavy Duty
Such interviews are a burden for unreconstructed, fact-based analysts of the old school. In a
word, they are required to watch them, just as they must plow through the turgid prose of "tell-it-all"
memoirs. But due diligence can sometimes harvest an occasional grain of wheat among the chaff.
For example, George W. Bush's memoir, Decision Points, included a passage the former
president seems to have written himself. Was Bush relieved to learn, just 15 months before he left
office, the "high-confidence," unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran had
stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed work on such weapons? No way!
In his memoir, he complains bitterly that this judgment in that key 2007 National Intelligence
Estimate "tied my hands on the military side. After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using
the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no
active nuclear weapons program?" No, I am not making this up. He wrote that.
In another sometimes inadvertently revealing memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years
at the CIA, CIA Director George Tenet described Michael Morell, whom he picked to be CIA's briefer
of President George W. Bush, in these terms: "Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike
speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush hit it
off almost immediately. Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief's side."
Wonder what Morell was telling Bush about those "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and the
alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Was Morell winking at Bush the same way Tenet winked
at the head of British intelligence on July 20, 2002, telling him that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq?
High on Morell
Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protιgι and former executive assistant Morell. But
he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's
infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations a dubious distinction if there ever was one.
So Morell reviewed the "intelligence" that went into Powell's thoroughly deceptive account of
the Iraqi threat! Powell later called that dramatic speech, which wowed Washington's media and foreign
policy elites and was used to browbeat the few remaining dissenters into silence, a "blot" on his
record.
In Morell's own memoir, The Great War of Our Time, Morell apologized to former Secretary
of State Powell for the bogus CIA intelligence that found its way into Powell's address. Morell
told CBS: "I thought it important to do so because he went out there and made this case, and
we were wrong."
It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;"
it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a
five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the
fraudulent nature of the WMD propaganda campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he kept quiet and
got promoted.
Out of Harm's Way
For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending
him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting
director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [nonexistent] WMD.
Cohen made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible in late November 2003, and was still
holding out some hope that WMD would be found. He noted, however, "If we eventually are proved
wrong that is, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the WMD programs were dormant
or abandoned the American people will be told the truth " And then Stu disappeared into the woodwork.
In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive
WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with
the final bill expected to top $1 billion.
In Morell's The Great War of Our Time, he writes, "In the summer of 2003 I became CIA's
senior focal point for liaison with the analytic community in the United Kingdom." He notes that
one of the "dominant" issues, until he left the U.K. in early 2006, was "Iraq, namely our failure
to find weapons of mass destruction." (It was a PR problem; Prime Minister Tony Blair and Morell's
opposite numbers in British intelligence were fully complicit in the "dodgy-dossier" type of intelligence.)
When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was
appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence
until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013.
Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday,
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very
top of US intelligence in the Twenty-first Century and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever
is likely to be the next President.
... ... ...
As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump,
well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times
op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr.
Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit
an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from
a control officer.
However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make
the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such
an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder"
of ISIS.
Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher
and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in
an article
titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence
officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder
of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods
in all four of CIA's main directorates.
This week we also published
a terrific
piece
by John LaForge, which demolishes once and for one of America's most cherished lies: that
the US simply
had
to drop two nuclear bombs on Japanese cities to end the war and save hundreds
of thousands of US and Japanese lies. Even Curtis "Mad Bomber" LeMay knew this was bullshit. So did
Ike, who sent word to Truman that he thought the plan was insane. You can see why the myth took root.
What nation that sees itself a force of goodness and virtue and humanity could live with itself after
incinerating two cities and unleashing nuclear terror upon the world?
It seems like I've known Nicholas
Schou forever, though we just pressed flesh for the first time last year in the LBC. His ground-breaking
reporting on the Contra-Cocaine network in southern California was crucial source material for a
book that Cockburn and I wrote called Whiteout. Nick's own book on Gary Webb is excellent and it
was turned into a fine movie,
Kill the Messenger. Now Nick has published a new book, Spooked,
a terrific and timely history of how the CIA manipulates the media and Hollywood (both useful idiots
of the Agency). And, speaking of the devil, here Nick is telling us all about it in the latest installment
of CounterPunch
Radio with the indefatigable Eric Draitser.
This transformation of State Department into the branch of CIA started under
Madeleine Albright and reached crescendo during Hillary Clinton.
Notable quotes:
"... I personally have suggested investigating the person of the US Ambassador in Ankara John Bass, who was Ambassador in Republic of Georgia in 2008 and who was involved in dirty business in Iraq, and also seems to be involved in "Color revolution" in Kiev. There are very few "traditional" diplomats in a state department. ..."
The new evidence of the US participation in the coup attempt in Turkey emerged.
Greek press published a photo made a day before the coup. It shows the US ambassador
in Turkey John Basse together with the Turkish senior officer, who looks like
one of the leaders of the coup Col. Ali Yazıcı (former military adviser to President
Erdogan). They had a private meeting in Cengelkoy cafι the day before the coup.
F. William Engdahl - historian, economic researcher, writer comments this:
The US right now is on a defensive. Erdogan has openly challenged leading
NATO generals. There is investigation of evidences of the US involvement
in the coup. I personally have suggested investigating the person of
the US Ambassador in Ankara John Bass, who was Ambassador in Republic of
Georgia in 2008 and who was involved in dirty business in Iraq, and also
seems to be involved in "Color revolution" in Kiev. There are very few "traditional"
diplomats in a state department.
"... Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony ..."
"... The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive: ..."
"... Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts. ..."
(ANTIMEDIA)
As the United States continues to
develop and upgrade their nuclear weapons capabilities at an alarming rate,
America's ruling class refuses to heed warnings from President Vladimir Putin
that Russia will respond as necessary.
In his most
recent
attempt to warn his Western counterparts about the impending danger of a
new nuclear arms race, Putin told the heads of large foreign companies and business
associations that Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear
hegemony. He was speaking at the 20th St. Petersburg International Economic
Forum.
"We know year by year what will happen, and they know that we know,"
he said.
Putin argued that the rationale the U.S. previously gave for maintaining
and developing its nuclear weapons system is directed at the so-called "Iranian
threat." But that threat has been drastically reduced since the U.S. proved
instrumental in reaching an
agreement with Iran that should
put to rest any possible Iranian nuclear potential.
The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United
States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the
systems are just as offensive as they are defensive:
"They say [the missile systems] are part of their defense capability,
and are not offensive, that these systems are aimed at protecting them from
aggression. It's not true the strategic ballistic missile defense is part
of an offensive strategic capability, [and] functions in conjunction with
an aggressive missile strike system."
This missile system has been launched throughout Europe, and despite
American promises at the end of the Cold War that NATO's expansion would
not move "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," the missile system
has been implemented in many of Russia's neighboring countries, most recently
in Romania.
Russia views this as a direct attack on their security.
"How do we know what's inside those launchers? All one needs to do
is reprogram [the system], which is an absolutely inconspicuous task,"
Putin stated.
Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's
implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile
defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an
upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without
this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout
the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic
balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale
wars and military conflicts.
Following
George W. Bush's 2001 decision to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the
1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, Russia was, according to Putin, left with
no choice but to upgrade their capabilities in response.
Putin warned:
"Today Russia has reached significant achievements in this field.
We have modernized our missile systems and successfully developed new generations.
Not to mention missile defense systems We must provide security not only
for ourselves. It's important to provide strategic balance in the world,
which guarantees peace on the planet.
Neutralizing Russia's nuclear potential will undo, according to Putin,
"the mutual threat that has provided [mankind] with global security for decades."
It should, therefore, come as no surprise that NASA scientists want to
colonize the moon by 2022 - we may have to if we don't drastically alter
the path we are on. As Albert Einstein
famously stated:
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
"... Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East." ..."
"... The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 198088, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.) ..."
"... Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. ..."
"... Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades. ..."
"... "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East. ..."
"... The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible. ..."
"... The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect." ..."
Bacevich's latest book, America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History,
is a bookend of sorts to American Empire. The earlier work was heavy on theory and institutional
development, the groundwork for the wars of the early 21st century. The new book covers the history
itself-and argues persuasively that the Afghanistan, Iraq, and other, smaller wars since 9/11 are
parts of a larger conflict that began much earlier, back in the Carter administration.
Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's
account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of
World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that
region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no
American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East."
Operation Eagle Claw, Carter's ill-fated mission to rescue Americans held hostage in Iran, was
the first combat engagement in the war. Iran would continue to tempt Washington to military action
throughout the next 36 years-though paradoxically, attempts to contain Iran more often brought the
U.S. into war with the Islamic Republic's hostile neighbor, Iraq.
The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it
weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq
War of 198088, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement
with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.)
Weakened and indebted by that war, and thinking the U.S. tolerant of his ambitions, Saddam then
invaded Kuwait, leading to full-scale U.S. military intervention against him: Operation Desert Storm
in 1991. (By Bacevich's count, the second Gulf War.) President George H.W. Bush stopped American
forces from pushing on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait, however, because-among other things-toppling
Saddam would have created a dangerous vacuum that Iran might fill.
A decade of sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombing then ensued, as Washington, under
Bush and Clinton, would neither depose Saddam Hussein nor permit him to reassert himself. Finally,
George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of
"regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put
into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the
void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. This would set a
precedent for America to democratize every trouble-making state in the region, including Iran.
Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change
in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled
as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer
to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in
the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades.
Iran released its American hostages the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president: January 20,
1981. So what accounts for another 35 years of conflict with Iran and Iraq? The answer begins with
oil.
Bacevich takes us back to the Carter years. "By June 1979, a just-completed study by a then-obscure
Defense Department official named Paul Wolfowitz was attracting notice throughout the national security
bureaucracy." This "Limited Contingency Study" described America's "vital and growing stake in the
Persian Gulf," arising from "our need for Persian-Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf
affect the Arab-Israeli conflict."
"Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which
in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in
the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S.
interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging
Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists,
token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East.
(Bacevich is fair to Wolfowitz, acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was indeed an expansionist,
as the Iraqi dictator would demonstrate by invading Iran in 1980 and seizing Kuwait a decade later.
Whether this meant that Iraq was ever a threat to U.S. interests is, of course, a different question-as
is whether the Soviet Union could really have cut America off from Gulf oil.)
Wolfowitz was not alone in calling for the U.S. to become the guarantor of Middle East security-and
Saudi Arabia's security in particular-and President Carter heeded the advice. In March 1980 he created
the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), predecessor to what we now know as the U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM), which has military oversight for the region. The RDJTF's second head, Lt. Gen.
Robert Kingston, described its mission, in admirably frank language, as simply "to ensure the unimpeded
flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf."
Iraq and Iran both posed dangers to the flow of oil and its control by Saudi Arabia and other
Arab allies-to use the term loosely-of the United States. And just as the U.S. was drawn into wars
with Iran and Iraq when it tried to play one against the other, America's defense of Saudi Arabia
would have grave unintended consequences-such as the creation of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was outraged
when, in 1990, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd declined his offer to wage holy war against Saddam Hussein
and instead turned to American protection, even permitting the stationing of American military personnel
in Islam's sacred lands. "To liberate Kuwait," writes Bacevich, bin Laden had "offered to raise an
army of mujahedin. Rejecting his offer and his protest, Saudi authorities sought to silence the impertinent
bin Laden. Not long thereafter, he fled into exile, determined to lead a holy war that would overthrow
the corrupt Saudi royals." The instrument bin Laden forged to accomplish that task, al-Qaeda, would
target Americans as well, seeking to push the U.S. out of Muslim lands.
Bin Laden had reason to hope for success: in the 1980s he had helped mujahedin defeat another
superpower, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan. That struggle, of course, was supported by the U.S.,
through the CIA's "Operation Cyclone," which funneled arms and money to the Soviets' Muslim opponents.
Bacevich offers a verdict on this program:
Operation Cyclone illustrates one of the central ironies of America's War for the Greater Middle
East-the unwitting tendency, while intently focusing on solving one problem, to exacerbate a second
and plant the seeds of a third. In Afghanistan, this meant fostering the rise of Islamic radicalism
and underwriting Pakistan's transformation into a nuclear-armed quasi-rogue state while attempting
to subvert the Soviet Union.
America's support for the mujahedin succeeded in inflicting defeat on the USSR-but left Afghanistan
a haven and magnet for Islamist radicals, including bin Laden.
Another irony of Bacevich's tale is the way in which the end of the Cold War made escalation of
the War for the Greater Middle East possible. The Carter and Reagan administrations never considered
the Middle East the centerpiece of their foreign policy: Western Europe and the Cold War took precedence.
Carter and Reagan were unsystematic about their engagement with the Middle East and, even as they
expanded America's military presence, remained wary of strategic overcommitment. Operation Eagle
Claw, Reagan's deployment of troops to Lebanon in 1983 and bombing of Libya in 1986, and even the
meddling in Iran and Iraq were all small-scale projects compared to what would be unleashed after
the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to
redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time
were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation
Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible.
The
Greater Middle East of Bacevich's title centers strategically, if not geographically, upon Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. But its strategic implications and cultural reach are wide, encompassing
Libya, Somalia, and other African states with significant Muslim populations; Afghanistan and Pakistan
(or "AfPak," in the Obama administration's parlance); and even, on the periphery, the Balkans, where
the U.S. intervened militarily in support of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. That Clinton-era
intervention is examined in detail by Bacevich: "Today, years after NATO came to their rescue," he
writes, "a steady stream of Bosnians and Kosovars leave their homeland and head off toward Syria
and Iraq, where they enlist as fighters in the ongoing anti-American, anti-Western jihad."
Much as George W. Bush believed that liberal democracy would spring up in Saddam Hussein's wake,
the humanitarian interventionists who demanded that Bill Clinton send peacekeepers to Bosnia and
bomb Serbia on behalf of the Kosovars thought that they were making the world safe for their own
liberal, multicultural values. But as Bacevich notes, the Balkan Muslims joining ISIS today are "waging
war on behalf of an entirely different set of universal values."
Bacevich's many books confront readers with painful but necessary truths. The final lesson
of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American
freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect."
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative.
"... I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region. ..."
"... Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. ..."
"... The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration. Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran. ..."
"... It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the Madeleine Albright ***** the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary will go to hell put it when speaking of 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done. ..."
"... Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming. ..."
"... Just think of it the First and the Last woman president. ..."
"... You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level of situational awareness. ..."
"... After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism, the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation. ..."
"... Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries. ..."
Hillary 2008: "George Stephanopoulos: "Senator Clinton, would you [extend
our deterrent to Israel]?"
Hillary Clinton: "Well, in fact I think that we should be looking
to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel.
Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel
would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the
same with other countries in the region."
Massive Retaliation has always had the meaning of a 'massive' nuclear
attack.
Hillary 2016: "MR. CUOMO: Iran: some language recently. You said if Iran
were to strike Israel, there would be a massive retaliation. Scary words.
Does massive retaliation mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is
that what that's supposed to suggest?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, the question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear
attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to
know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to
understand that.
Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their
society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear
weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider
launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.
That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to
understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something
that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic."
The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second
part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration.
Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack
on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran.
It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the
Madeleine Albright ***** the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't
vote for Hillary will go to hell put it when speaking of 500,000 dead
Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done.
But move on it's the insane Trump who can't be trusted with nukes.
Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted
to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast
with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody
at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture
types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance
to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming.
Just think of it the First and the Last woman president.
likbez , August 5, 2016 11:29 pm
Hi Zachary,
> Just think of it the First and the Last woman president.
You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health,
age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition,
she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level
of situational awareness.
For some specialties like airplane pilots this is a death sentence. Unfortunately,
if elected, she can take the country with her.
While the USSR existed, as bad as it was for people within its borders,
it was a blessing for the people of the USA, as it kept the elite in check
and frightful to behave in "natural, greedy and delusional "Masters of the
Universe" way".
After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism,
the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation.
If you read what Hillary utters like "no fly zone" in Syria and other
similar staff, to me this looks like a sign of madness, plain and simple.
No reasonable politician should go of the cliff like that, if stakes are
not extremely high.
And MSM try to sell her as a more reasonable politician then Trump. In
reality she is like Kelvin absolute zero. You just can't go lower. The only
hope is that she is a puppet and it does not matter what she utters.
But if we take her statements about Syria and Russia at face value, she
is either dangerously ignorant or (more probably) is a female sociopath.
Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation,
no boundaries.
So her arrogant and reckless behavior as for "getting rich quick" and
with the private "bathroom" email server is a sign of more general and more
dangerous tendency.
Neocons are still way too powerful. They dominate MSM and essentially
dictate the agenda.
"... Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails. ..."
"... Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons. ..."
"... And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them. ..."
"... I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle? ..."
"... One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges. ..."
"... But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies. ..."
"... So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military. ..."
"... This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date all of its borrowed money and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood. ..."
"... No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan. ..."
Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert
attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries
against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails.
This was rich coming from the US that snoops into everyone's emails and phones across the globe.
Remember German chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone being bugged by the US National Security Agency?
Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB
or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials
who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Blaming Putin was a master-stroke of deflection. No more talk of Hillary's slush fund foundation
or her status as a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street. All attention was focused
on President Putin who has been outrageously demonized by the US media and politicians.
Except for a small faux pas a montage of warships shown at the end of the Democratic Convention
is a blaze of jingoistic effusion embarrassingly turned out to be Russian warships!
Probably another trick by the awful Putin who has come to replace Satan in the minds of many Americans.
And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number
One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more
missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle
Sam can deal with them.
I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind
me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood
for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry
spectacle?
One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest
ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America,
the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan
Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local
Afghan opium-growing stooges.
The saintly President Barack Obama repeatedly proclaimed the Afghan War over and staged phony
troops withdrawals. He must have believed his generals who kept claiming they had just about defeated
the resistance alliance, known as Taliban.
But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President
Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force.
Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been
swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies.
So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always
weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese
or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan
pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed
to defeat the US military.
Look what happened to the Soviets after they admitted defeat in Afghanistan and pulled out. Why
expose the US Empire to a similar geopolitical risk?
With al-Qaida down to less than 50 members in Afghanistan, according to former US defense chief
Leon Panetta, what was the ostensible reason for Washington to keep garrisoning Afghanistan? The
shadowy ISIS is now being dredged up as the excuse to stay.
This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date all of its borrowed money and
caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a
war none of them understood.
No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans
are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about
the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan.
"... The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protιgι Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it. ..."
"... Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation. ..."
"... And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago. ..."
"... Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents. ..."
"... Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party. ..."
"... If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020. ..."
The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary
Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential
nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline
foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged
bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protιgι Victoria Nuland.
The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame
Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States.
Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee,
then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat,
Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is
no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it.
Those in the media and around Hillary who were baying the loudest about how outraged they were
over the hack curiously appear to have no knowledge of the existence of the National Security Agency,
located at Fort Meade Maryland, which routinely breaks into the government computers of friends and
foes alike worldwide. Apparently what is fair game for American codebreakers is no longer seen so
positively when there is any suggestion that the tables might have been turned.
Republican nominee Donald Trump noted that if the Russians were in truth behind the hack he would
like them to search for the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton reportedly deleted from her home server.
The comment, which to my mind was sarcastically making a point about Clinton's mendacity, brought
down the wrath of the media, with the New York Times
reporting that "foreign policy experts," also sometimes known as "carefully selected 'Trump haters,'"
were shocked by The Donald. The paper quoted one William Inboden, allegedly a University of Texas
professor who served on President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Inboden complained
that the comments were "an assault on the Constitution" and "tantamount to treason." Now I have never
heard of Inboden, which might be sheer ignorance on my part, but he really should refresh himself
on what the Constitution
actually says about
treason, tantamount or otherwise. According to Article III of the Constitution of the United States
one can only commit treason if there is a declared war going on and one is actively aiding an enemy,
which as far as I know is not currently the case as applied to the U.S. relationship with Russia.
Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow
is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald
Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be
able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's
favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American
values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers
including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able
to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and
his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation.
And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by
other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so
in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even
a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the
fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big
winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is
the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid
for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed,
Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position
it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media
around thirty years ago.
Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv
is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen
times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S.,
never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents.
No other foreign country was mentioned as often as Israel apart from Iran, which was regularly
cited as an enemy of both the U.S. and you guessed it Israel. Indeed, the constant thumping of
Iran is a reflection of the overweening affection for Netanyahu and his right wing government. Regarding
Iran, the GOP foreign policy
platform states "We consider the Administration's deal with Iran, to lift international sanctions
and make hundreds of billions of dollars available to the Mullahs, a personal agreement between the
President and his negotiating partners and non-binding on the next president. Without a two-thirds
endorsement by the Senate, it does not have treaty status. Because of it, the defiant and emboldened
regime in Tehran continues to sponsor terrorism across the region, develop a nuclear weapon, test-fire
ballistic missiles inscribed with 'Death to Israel,' and abuse the basic human rights of its citizens."
The final written
Republican platform for 2016 as relating to the Middle East, drawn up
with the input
of two Trump advisors Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, rather supports the suggestion that Trump
would be pro-Israel rather than the claim of impartiality. The plank entitled "Our Unequivocal Support
of Israel and Jerusalem," promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, praises Israel in five
different sections, eulogizing it as a "beacon of democracy and humanity" brimming over with freedom
of speech and religion while concluding that "support for Israel is an expression of Americanism."
It pledges "no daylight" between the two countries, denies that Israel is an "occupier," and slams
the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which it describes as anti-Semitic
and seeking to destroy Israel. It calls for legal action to "thwart" BDS. There is no mention of
a Palestinian state or of any Palestinian rights to anything at all.
The
Democratic plank on the Middle East gives lip service to a two state solution for Israel-Palestine
but is mostly notable for what it chose to address. Two Bernie Sanders supporters on the platform
drafting committee James Zogby and Cornel West wanted to remove any illegal under international
law affirmation that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and also sought to eliminated any
condemnation of BDS. They failed on both issues and then tried to have included mild language criticizing
Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its settlement building. They were outvoted by Hillary supporters
on all the issues they considered important. Indeed, there is no language at all critical in any
way of Israel, instead asserting that "a strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because
we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance,
and pluralism." That none of that was or is true apparently bothered no one in the Hillary camp.
The Democratic platform document explicitly condemns any support for BDS. Hillary Clinton, who
has promised to take the relationship with Israel to a whole new level, has reportedly
agreed to an anti-BDS
pledge to appease her principal financial supporter Haim Saban, an Israeli-American film producer.
Clinton also directly and personally intervened through her surrogate on the committee Wendy Sherman
to make sure that the party platform would remain pro-Israel.
But many Democrats on the floor of the convention hall have, to their credit, promoted a somewhat
different perspective, displaying signs and stickers while calling for support of Palestinian
rights. One demonstrator outside the convention center burned an Israeli flag, producing a
sharp response from Hillary's spokeswoman for Jewish outreach Sarah Bard, "Hillary Clinton has
always stood against efforts to marginalize Israel and incitement, and she strongly condemns this
kind of hatred. Burning the Israeli flag is a reckless act that undermines peace and our values."
Bill meanwhile was
seen in the hall wearing a Hillary button written in Hebrew. It was a full court press pander
and one has to wonder how Hillary would have felt about someone burning a Russian flag or seeing
Bill sport a button in Cyrillic.
Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there
are separate reports suggesting that one of her
first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad
regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from
the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party.
The Democratic platform also
beats down on Iran, declaring only tepid support for the nuclear deal while focusing more on
draconian enforcement, asserting that they would "not hesitate to take military action if Iran violates
the agreement." It also cited Iran as "the leading state sponsor of terrorism" and claimed that Tehran
"has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East." For what it's worth, neither
assertion about Iran's regional role is true and Tehran reportedly has complied completely with the
multilateral nuclear agreement. It is the U.S. government that is failing to live up to its commitments
by refusing to allow Iranian access to financial markets while the Congress has even blocked an Iranian
bid to buy Made-in-the-U.S.A. civilian jetliners.
So those of us who had hoped for at least a partial abandonment of the hitherto dominant foreign
policy consensus have to be disappointed as they in the pro-war crowd in their various guises as
liberal interventionists or global supremacy warriors continue to control much of the discourse from
left to right. Russia continues to be a popular target to vent Administration frustration over its
inept posturing overseas, though there is some hope that Donald Trump might actually reverse that
tendency. Iran serves as a useful punchline whenever a politician on the make runs out of other things
to vilify. And then there is always Israel, ever the victim, perpetually the greatest ally and friend.
And invariably needing some extra cash, a warplane or two or a little political protection in venues
like the United Nations.
If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless
task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement
of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political
class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely
to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the
Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that
the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020.
"... If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House. ..."
"... As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring. ..."
"... We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders my predictions are coming true. ..."
"... The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first. ..."
"... What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are. ..."
Washington is preparing to
increase US aid to Israel by billions of dollars, with a ten-year ironclad agreement that couldn't
be altered by President Obama's successor. But that isn't good enough for Bibi Netanyahu. He wants
more. Much more.
Unlike the case with other countries, the US engages in protracted and often difficult negotiations
with Israel over how much free stuff they're going to get come budget time. This year, the talks
are taking on a particularly urgent tone because of you guessed it, Donald Trump. While Trump is
fervently pro-Israel, he has said that the Israelis, like our NATO allies, are going to have to
start paying for their
own defense (although with him,
you never know what his position is from
one day to the next ). This uncertainty has the two parties racing to sign an agreement before
President Obama's term is up in January. And it also has inspired the inclusion of a novel clause:
a ten-year guarantee that aid will remain at the agreed level, with no possibility that the new President
whoever that may be will lower it.
The Israelis
currently receive over half the foreign aid doled out by Uncle Sam annually, most of it in military
assistance with an extra added dollop for "refugee resettlement." That combined with loan guarantees
comes to roughly $3.5 billion per year with all the money handed to them up front, in the first
weeks of the fiscal year, instead of being released over time like other countries.
So how much is this increase going to amount to? With negotiations still ongoing, the US isn't
releasing any solid figures, although Bibi, we are told, is demanding $5 billion annually. The
New York Times is
reporting the final sum could "top $40 billion." What we do know is that the administration told
Congress in a letter that they are prepared to offer Tel Aviv an aid package "that would constitute
the largest pledge of military assistance to any country in US history." In addition, it would guarantee
US aid for Israel's missile defense, taking it out of the annual appropriations song-and-dance, and
immunizing it from any cuts.
Aside from the "haggling" as the Times put it over the amount, there is another issue:
the Israeli exception to a rule that applies to all other recipients of American aid. Other countries
must spend their welfare check in dollars that is, they must buy American. Not the Israelis. They're
allowed to spend up to 25% of their aid package at home: which means that US taxpayers have been
subsidizing the Israeli military-industrial complex to the tune of multi-billions since the 1980s,
when this special arrangement was legislated. However, in an era where "America First" is now a popular
political slogan popularized by You Know Who the Obama administration is trying to end this exception
to the rules. Naturally, the Israelis are resisting, but,
according to Ha'aretz
:
"The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House was prepared to let Israel keep
the arrangement for the first five years of the new MOU but it would be gradually phased out in the
second five years, except for joint U.S.-Israeli military projects."
If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this
concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources
to get Congress to pressure the White House.
In their letter to Congress, national security honcho Susan Rice and OMB chief Shaun Donovan evoke
the Iran deal as justification for this new and sweeter aid package. Yet this argument undermines
the administration's contention that the agreement with Iran doesn't endanger Israel because if
it doesn't, then why do the Israelis need billions more in aid in the first place?
What the letter tiptoes around is the fact that this aid package is extortion, pure and simple.
It's a purely political attempt by the Obama White House to appease the Israelis, and mobilize the
Israel lobby behind the Democrats in a crucial election year. It's important to keep
Haim Saban happy.
As Glenn Greenwald
points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy
is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure,
their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is
occurring.
What in the heck is going on here?
We made possible the
Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its
dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has
encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use
the "f"-word lightly. I've been
chronicling Israel's slide
toward a
repulsive ethno-nationalism
for years , and today
with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the
expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders
my predictions are coming true.
The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off
US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous
insults
, slights, and outright
sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from
You Know Who: it's time to put America first.
What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful
apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration
Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's
just what they are.
"... 0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was a minor one (DR-CAFTA?). ..."
"... I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New Guy will be even worse than 0bama ..."
"... Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary! ..."
"... Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait! ..."
BTW, do you think we "dodge 2 bullets" & make it to Jan 2017 without 0bama being able to implement
his beloved TPP & Grand Ripoff?
Flying Spaghetti Monster Willing, I hope so!
0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for
Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let
it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was
a minor one (DR-CAFTA?).
0bama's passion is allowing the 1%ers enrichment by parasitically ripping off 99%ers. In contrast
Bush43's passion was neocon Middle East warmongering regime-change, & Christian Theocratic stances
like banning stem cell research & gay marriage, & fellow theocrat SCOTUS nominations.
I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New
Guy will be even worse than 0bama.
Perhaps there is a small chance for HClinton to be less bad
than 0bama if the Sanders-ish social democrats (typically labeled Progressives) can force HClinton
to halfway stick to the 2016 platform. Based on HClinton's behavior during the campaign, I doubt
that is possible she seems to detest the Progressive faction, based off the Kaine nomination
& authoritarian banning of Sanders delegates from the convention floor, etc, & so far HClinton
seems to get away with this "hippie punching" behavior.
One positive aspect is that I feel like that HClinton will be unable to use the 0bama excuses
to valid Progressives' policy critiques of
You are a sexist for critizing Dear Leader! (racist in 0bama's case)
Those Evil Rs won't let her do that policy
These bogus replies are "dead horses" after continual use by 0bamabots, that IMHO will not
be available for HClinton to use.
Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously
put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're
recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary!
Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait!
"... How can anyone vote for that corrupt warmonger? Seriously, can someone explain why she has 50% of the votes in the USA. Unbelievable. ..."
"... Killary, like Barry, loves killing people. Psychopaths--both of them. ..."
"... I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. ..."
"... Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck? ..."
Funny the Dems are so hot for Hillary and don't recognize she's a regime-changing warmonger on
a par with Bush, responsible for millions of dead and displaced in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
Exactly how nuts do you have to be to think you can go to war with Russia? Even if you come out
on top, what's the environment going to be like? Is emerging from your bunker with 70% of the
population dead and no atmosphere left considered a win? FUCK HILLARY RAW.
I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know
for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. She's bad news.
WE ARE WITNESSING THE MOST CORRUPT, MAFIA-LIKE.. ANTI AMERICAN WOMAN IN HISTORY OF POLITICS. THERE
ARE REASONS WHY SCANDALS AND LIES AND DEATHS HAVE FOLLOWED HER FOR YEARS.
Truth Archives
Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended
by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people
in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck?
2eyesofhorus
Hillary has become in effect, a NeoConservative, not a Democrat-she votes for war continually
Aisha K
Actually a lot of Muslims don't support Hillary or Trump and prefer Bernie because Bernie really
did vote against the war in Iraq, while Trump only claims he was once against it. Regardless of
that fact, Trump makes a powerful argument against voting for Hillary because of her warmonger
record in Iraq, Libya and any other place she gets involved in, and the damage it has caused the
entire world, including USA.
This Trump ad gives us a taste of what the Democrats will be up against if we have to try to mobilize
the voters behind Hillary to stop him. And why so many of us won't be able to put our hearts into
it. Because on this issue he is absolutely right. Hillary's record on foreign policy is reprehensible
- and terrifying. But it's not just on this issue - she has been lying about many things, among
them the state of the economy. With no public voting record to defend, no fundamental commitment
to the truth or reality, with a prostitute press that selectively forgets what he said yesterday,
Trump can be selectively right - and righteous - on any issue he chooses. Until it no longer suits
him.
Do I think Trump would be better than Clinton on issues of war and peace? Not for a minute.
Would he be worse? Maybe - I'm honestly not sure...
Garou
Take it from me .. She's a monster.
gamira007
+PeaceAndJustice Yes absolutely she is propped up by the MSM and the Corporate death machine.
The Majority do know this woman is pure evil but our rulers hand pick who is prez here cause if
voting did really matter then it would be illegal.
PeaceAndJustice
+Philo Beddoe
Her 'support' is driven by the MSM which is completely controlled by the PRC (Predatory Ruling
Class). Basically the people that believe the television think she is just a swell lady.
"... Clinton would want to widen the gulf between AIPAC and Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee. "We need steady hands, not a president who says he's neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything is negotiable," she said to applause, out-hawking the man who is running on a platform of Middle Eastern war crimes. ..."
"... In doing so, she offered a bridge to #NeverTrump neoconservatives like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, who has already written that, should Trump be the nominee, "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... It is a strange, strange spectacle, this yearly AIPAC conference, where U.S. politicians from across the political spectrum are compelled to stand in front of a bunch of Israeli flags and proclaim unquestioning fealty to a foreign ethno-state. ..."
"... This year of all years, Clinton could have afforded to show a bit of courage before AIPAC. Jews will vote Democratic no matter what. Sixty-nine percent of them voted for Obama in 2012, despite the well-known tension between him and Netanyahu. ..."
"... Her correspondence with adviser Sid Blumenthal-a man loathed by the Israel lobby for not disavowing his anti-Zionist son, Max-suggests that she's aware of the damage Netanyahu is doing to the cause of peace in the Middle East. But if she is, she doesn't care about it enough to take even a tiny political risk, to tell a crowd something other than exactly what it wants to hear. Either Clinton's AIPAC speech was driven by belief, or it was driven by cynicism. It's hard to say which is worse. ..."
ny presidential candidate speaking to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, during
an election year is going to bow to the hawkish elements of the Israel lobby. Hillary Clinton's keynote
speech at AIPAC's annual meeting Monday, however, was more debased than it needed to be, promising
that under her administration, Israel will be spared even the mild rebukes it has suffered under
President Obama. A symphony of pandering, it attempted to outflank Donald Trump on the right and
will end up outraging a large chunk of the left.
As Joe Biden acknowledged in his AIPAC
speech on Sunday, Israel's
"steady and systematic process of expanding settlements, legalizing outposts, seizing land" is making
a two-state solution impossible. The settlements are pushing Israel toward a one-state reality, in
which Jews rule over the Arabs with whom they are geographically intermingled. Clinton's speech,
however, barely nodded toward this reality, and when it did, it was with a promise to protect Israel
from the consequences of flouting international law. Advertisement
Here is the entirety of Clinton's remarks about settlements:
"Everyone has to do their part by avoiding damaging actions, including with respect to
settlements. Now, America has an important role to play in supporting peace efforts. And as president,
I would continue the pursuit of direct negotiations. And let me be clear-I would vigorously oppose
any attempt by outside parties to impose a solution, including by the U.N. Security Council."
She spent significantly more time railing against the "alarming"
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement
, which is gaining traction on college campuses nationwide. Pledging to "take our alliance to the
next level," Clinton said that one of the first things she'd do in office is invite the Israeli prime
minister to the White House. That was a barely veiled rebuke to Obama, who never treated Benjamin
Netanyahu with the
deference the prime minister felt entitled to. Before the speech, some had
hoped that Clinton
might offer a word of solidarity or encouragement to beleaguered progressives in Israel. She gave
them nothing. It's understandable that Clinton would want to widen the gulf between AIPAC and
Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee. "We need steady hands, not a president who says he's
neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything is
negotiable," she said to applause, out-hawking the man who is running on a platform of Middle Eastern
war crimes.
In doing so, she offered a bridge to #NeverTrump neoconservatives like Max Boot and
Robert Kagan, who has already
written that, should Trump be the nominee, "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.
The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." Anti-Trump neoconservatives, however, are
a minuscule group of people. And in seeking their approval, Clinton has further alienated left-wing
voters, particularly young ones. Polls show that Americans under 30 are far more
critical of Israel than are older voters. Liberal Democrats
sympathize more with the Palestinians than they do with Israel. There is already deep suspicion
of Clinton's foreign-policy instincts among Bernie Sanders' supporters; Clinton doesn't need to give
them new reasons to distrust her.
It is a strange, strange spectacle, this yearly AIPAC conference, where U.S. politicians from
across the political spectrum are compelled to stand in front of a bunch of Israeli flags and proclaim
unquestioning fealty to a foreign ethno-state.
This year of all years, Clinton could have afforded to show a bit of courage before AIPAC. Jews
will vote Democratic no matter what. Sixty-nine percent of them voted for Obama in 2012, despite
the well-known tension between him and Netanyahu. Unlike Obama, Clinton is going to be running against
a demagogue with German roots who plays footsie with white supremacists and reportedly kept a
volume of Hitler's speeches beside his bed. She'll have all the Jewish support she needs without
sucking up to the Likud. So why is she doing it?
Her
correspondence with adviser Sid Blumenthal-a man loathed by the Israel lobby for not disavowing
his anti-Zionist son, Max-suggests that she's aware of the damage Netanyahu is doing to the cause
of peace in the Middle East. But if she is, she doesn't care about it enough to take even a tiny
political risk, to tell a crowd something other than exactly what it wants to hear. Either Clinton's
AIPAC speech was driven by belief, or it was driven by cynicism. It's hard to say which is worse.
"... ...if you are a hard-core promoter of wars like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Jamie Weinstein, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, George Shultz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and many others, you have either endorsed or said very positive things about Hillary Clinton. How to explain this? ..."
"... But if you believe that the U.S. military is a force for good that hardly ever kills anyone worthy of redemption, that the chief role of the military is to rescue poor innocents from evil by overthrowing tyrants and spreading democracy by drone missile, if you believe air wars are more humane because in air wars nobody gets hurt, if you think presidents checking off kill lists on Tuesdays is ideal as long as it's the right presidents doing it, if you cheer for diversity in the U.S. military and want the Selective Service expanded to force every 18-year-old woman to register for the draft, if you believe Honduras and Ukraine and Libya had it coming or you have no idea what I'm referring to, if you think suggesting the abolition of NATO or a halt to overthrowing governments is crazy talk, and if you believe a good heavy bombing campaign of Syria would be the perfect way to demonstrate that we care about Syrians and value them as human beings, you just might be a Democrat. ..."
"... I've studied the marketing of wars , and the most successful war marketing campaigns in the United States include, in order from most to least necessary: ..."
"... The demonization of an entire foreign population. ..."
"... The demonization of a particular foreign person. ..."
"... The pretense of urgency, inevitability, and ideally of the state of being already underway. ..."
"... The pretense of upholding the rule of law. ..."
"... The pretense of humanitarianism. ..."
"... Point #7 will pick up a section of the population's support, even among people opposed to some of the other justifications. But alone it won't work. Points #1 and #2 can do well without #7. Any of these points can be strengthened or undone by partisanship if the war is labeled the possession of one political party or the other. And once the war is really up and rolling, a new justification slides into the #1 spot, namely the need to "support the troops" by killing more of them. ..."
...if you are a hard-core promoter of wars like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney,
Henry Kissinger, Jamie Weinstein, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, George
Shultz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and many others, you have either
endorsed or said very
positive things about Hillary Clinton. How to explain this? Are the
most rabid war supporters on one side and the most dependable war makers getting
nominated by the other? Well, maybe.
But if you believe that the U.S. military is a force for good that hardly
ever kills anyone worthy of redemption, that the chief role of the military
is to rescue poor innocents from evil by overthrowing tyrants and spreading
democracy by drone missile, if you believe air wars are more humane because
in air wars nobody gets hurt, if you think presidents checking off kill lists
on Tuesdays is ideal as long as it's the right presidents doing it, if you cheer
for diversity in the U.S. military and want the Selective Service expanded to
force every 18-year-old woman to register for the draft, if you believe Honduras
and Ukraine and Libya had it coming or you have no idea what I'm referring to,
if you think suggesting the abolition of NATO or a halt to overthrowing governments
is crazy talk, and if you believe a good heavy bombing campaign of Syria would
be the perfect way to demonstrate that we care about Syrians and value them
as human beings, you just might be a Democrat.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is the most dependable war monger nominated by a major
party in the United States in many years. She has the most
consistent and lengthy
record of doing what she's paid to do, of marketing U.S. weaponry abroad,
of manufacturing justifications for wars, of lobbying branches of the U.S. government
and foreign governments to support wars. And she'll do so while keeping up a
pretense of abiding by some selection of laws.
... ... ...
I've studied the marketing
of wars , and the most successful war marketing campaigns in the United
States include, in order from most to least necessary:
The pretense of a threat to anyone in the United States, most powerfully
if it is a threat of torture or rape or death by hand or knife. It need
not be the least bit realistic.
The demonization of an entire foreign population.
The demonization of a particular foreign person.
Revenge.
The pretense of urgency, inevitability, and ideally of the state
of being already underway.
The pretense of upholding the rule of law.
The pretense of humanitarianism.
Point #7 will pick up a section of the population's support, even among
people opposed to some of the other justifications. But alone it won't work.
Points #1 and #2 can do well without #7. Any of these points can be strengthened
or undone by partisanship if the war is labeled the possession of one political
party or the other. And once the war is really up and rolling, a new justification
slides into the #1 spot, namely the need to "support the troops" by killing
more of them.
I knew that Hillary would pick a neo-liberal corporate tool. I still think Trump might be worth
voting for - if only to throw sand in the gears of the system - but his picking neo-liberal corporate
tool Mike Pence as VP was disappointing. Business as usual? Mike Pence might be viewed as Jeb Bush copycat.
Apparently the Pence in the ticket is not "America first" but " Israel First". Trump picked a neocon
who voted twice for the Iraq war and also for invasion and regime-change in Libya. This is in contrast
to Trump's own non-interventionist policy. See "Trump's VP Choice a Betrayal: Open Letter to the Campaign
Team":
https://quemadoinstitute.org/2016/07/16/trumps-vp-choice-a-betrayal-open-letter-to-the-campaign-team/
Notable quotes:
"... As a Senator since 2013, Kaine has regularly called for increased US involvement in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. He has consistently supported the Obama administration's reckless brinkmanship against Russia and China, two nuclear-armed powers. He has repeatedly pushed for a Congressional resolution officially declaring war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in order to clear the way for stepped-up US intervention. ..."
"... Like Clinton, Kaine has also supported the creation of a no-fly zone in Syria, an action that would quickly provoke a confrontation with Russia. ..."
Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,455,590"
Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In U.S. War And Occupation
Of Iraq 4,801
Number Of International Occupation Force Troops Slaughtered In Afghanistan :
3,487
Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan $1,702,044,597,
In selecting Kaine, Clinton is making clear that she plans on running a right-wing, pro-war campaign
targeted at winning over the military and sections of the Republican Party dissatisfied with Trump,
and particularly with the Republican candidate's attitude toward Russia. Clinton also wanted to repudiate
any association with the issues of social inequality that motivated the widespread support for her
main rival in the primaries, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
Kaine is among the most hawkish figures among Senate Democrats. As governor of Virginia from 2006
to 2010, Kaine oversaw billions of dollars in cuts to the state budget. The state of Virginia is
a major center for the military and defense industry, and is home to the Pentagon and the headquarters
of the CIA
Between 2009 and 2011, Kaine served as the head of the Democratic National Committee, the leadership
body of the Democratic Party. He is close to Wall Street, having recently backed measures to deregulate
banks.
As a Senator since 2013, Kaine has regularly called for increased US involvement in Iraq,
Syria and Afghanistan. He has consistently supported the Obama administration's reckless brinkmanship
against Russia and China, two nuclear-armed powers. He has repeatedly pushed for a Congressional
resolution officially declaring war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in order to
clear the way for stepped-up US intervention.
Like Clinton, Kaine has also supported the creation of a no-fly zone in Syria, an action that
would quickly provoke a confrontation with Russia.
"... Despite Hillary's blatant willingness to be bribed in public, her opponent, Bernie Sanders, has not succeeded in making an issue of Hillary's shamelessness. Both of the main establishment newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times have come to Hillary's defense. ..."
"... Hillary is a warmonger. She pushed the Obama regime into the destruction of a stable and largely cooperative government in Libya where the "Arab Spring" was a CIA-backed group of jihadists who were used to dislodge China from its oil investments in eastern Libya. She urged her husband to bomb Yugoslavia. ..."
"... She has pushed for "regime change" in Syria. She oversaw the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras. She brought neoconservative Victoria Nuland, who arranged the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine, into the State Department. Hillary has called President Vladimir Putin of Russia the "new Hitler." Hillary as president guarantees war and more war . ..."
"... For the Clintons government means using public office to be rewarded for doing favors for private interests. The Wall Street Journal reported that "at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her [Hillary Clinton's] tenure as Secretary of State donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation . ..."
This is an English translation of an article that I wrote for the German
magazine, Compact. I was encouraged by the high level of intelligent discourse that Compact brings
to its readers. If only the US had more people capable of reaching beyond entertainment to comprehending
the forces that affect them, there might be some hope for America.
Compact brings hope to Germany. The German people are beginning to understand that their country
is not sovereign but a vassal of Washington and that their chancellor serves Washington's hegemony
and American financial interests, and not the German people.
Hillary Clinton is proving to be the
"teflon candidate." In her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, she has escaped damage
from major scandals, any one of which would destroy a politician.
Hillary has accepted massive bribes in the form of speaking fees from financial organizations
and corporations.
She is under investigation for misuse of classified data, an offense for which a number of whistleblowers
are in prison. Hillary has survived the bombing of Libya, her creation of a failed Libyan state that
is today a major source of terrorist jihadists, and the Benghazi controversy. She has survived charges
that as Secretary of State she arranged favors for foreign interests in exchange for donations to
the Clintons' foundation.
And, of course, there is a long list of previous scandals: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate. Diana
Johnstone's book, Queen of Chaos, describes Hillary Clinton as "the top salesperson for the ruling
oligarchy."
Hillary Clinton is a bought-and-paid-for representative of the big banks, the military-security complex,
and the Israel Lobby. She will represent these interests, not those of the American people or America's
European allies.
The Clintons' purchase by interest groups is public knowledge. For example, CNN
reports that between February 2001 and May 2015 Bill and Hillary Clinton were paid $153 million in
speaking fees for 729 speeches, an average price of $210,000.
As it became evident that Hillary Clinton would emerge as the likely Democratic presidential candidate,
she was paid more. Deutsche Bank paid her $485,000 for one speech, and Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000
for three speeches. Bank of American Morgan Stanley, UBS, and Fidelity Investments each
paid $225,000.
Despite Hillary's blatant willingness to be bribed in public, her opponent, Bernie Sanders,
has not succeeded in making an issue of Hillary's shamelessness. Both of the main establishment newspapers,
the Washington Post and the New York Times have come to Hillary's defense.
Hillary is a warmonger. She pushed the Obama regime into the destruction of a stable and largely
cooperative government in Libya where the "Arab Spring" was a CIA-backed group of jihadists who were
used to dislodge China from its oil investments in eastern Libya. She urged her husband to bomb Yugoslavia.
She has pushed for "regime change" in Syria. She oversaw the coup that overthrew the democratically
elected president of Honduras. She brought neoconservative Victoria Nuland, who arranged the coup
that overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine, into the State Department. Hillary
has called President Vladimir Putin of Russia the "new Hitler." Hillary as president guarantees
war and more war.
In the United States government has been privatized. Office holders use their positions in order
to make themselves wealthy, not in order to serve the public interest. Bill and Hillary Clinton epitomize
the use of public office in behalf of the office holder's interest.
For the Clintons government means using public office to be rewarded for doing favors for
private interests. The Wall Street Journal reported that "at least 60 companies that lobbied the
State Department during her [Hillary Clinton's] tenure as Secretary of State donated a total of more
than $26 million to the
Clinton Foundation."
This thread is interesting by presence of complete lunatics like
Brett Dunbar , who claims tha capitalism leads to peace.
Notable quotes:
"... Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively [^1] to defend or promote national interests ..."
"... Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace. ..."
"... War is a tool of competition for resources. Think Iraq. ..."
"... the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and company did ..."
"... The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war. ..."
"... John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who carry it out in the name of the state. ..."
"... They chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish on a tight budget. Its all about mentality. ..."
"... The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded capitalist development. ..."
"... Russia and China had achieved success in Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on mutual interest. ..."
"... Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically (in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely approximates the position and behavior of the present United States. ..."
100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from the
catastrophe of the Great War and the decades of slaughter that followed it. Rather than get bogged
down (yet again) in specifics that invariably decline into arguments about who know more of the historical
detail, I'm going to try a different approach, looking at the militarist ideology that gave us the
War, and trying to articulate an anti-militarist alternative.
Wikipedia offers a definition
of militarism which, with the deletion of a single weasel word, seems to be entirely satisfactory
and also seems to describe the dominant view of the political class, and much of the population in
nearly every country in the world.
Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain
a strong military capability and be prepared to use it
aggressively[^1] to defend or promote national
interests
Wikipedia isn't as satisfactory (to me) on
anti-militarism, so I'll
essentially reverse the definition above, and offer the following provisional definition
Anti-militarism is the belief or desire that a military expenditure should held to the minimum
required to protect a country against armed attack and that, with the exception of self-defense,
military power should not be used to promote national interests
I'd want to qualify this a bit, but it seems like a good starting point.
... ... ...
My case for anti-militarism has two main elements.
First, the consequentialist case against the discretionary use of military force is overwhelming.
Wars cause huge damage and destruction and preparation for war is immensely costly. Yet it is
just about impossible to find examples where a discretionary decision to go to war has produced
a clear benefit for the country concerned, or even for its ruling class. Even in cases where war
is initially defensive, attempts to secure war aims beyond the status quo ante have commonly led
to disaster.
Second, war is (almost) inevitably criminal since it involves killing and maiming people who
have done nothing personally to justify this; not only civilians, but soldiers (commonly including
conscripts) obeying the lawful orders of their governments.
Having made the strong case, I'll admit a couple of exceptions. First, although most of the above
has been posed in terms of national military power, there's nothing special in the argument that
requires this. Collective self-defense by a group of nations is justified (or not) on the same grounds
as national self-defense.
... ... ...
[^1]: The deleted word "aggressive" is doing a lot of work here. Almost no government ever admits
to being aggressive. Territorial expansion is invariable represented as the restoration of historically
justified borders while the overthrow of a rival government is the liberation of its oppressed people.
So, no one ever has to admit to being a militarist.
Is it obvious that limiting use of military force to self-defense entails a minimal capability
for force projection?
If the cost of entirely securing a nation's territory (Prof Q, you will
recognise the phrase "Fortress Australia") is very high relative to the cost of being able to
threaten an adversary's territorial interests in a way that is credible and meaningful would
it not then be unavoidably tempting to appeal to an expanded notion of self-defence and buy a
force-projection capability, even if your intent is genuinely peaceful?
To speculate a little further I would worry that so many people would need to be committed
to "national defence" on a purely defensive model that it would have the unintended side effect
of promoting a martial culture that normalises the use of armed force.
Of course, none of this applies if everyone abandons their force-projection capability but
is that a stable equilibrium, even if it could be achieved?
Well, you'll be pleased to know that they're working hard on WWI's perception [1]. Many of us
working against militarism. Not easy. And the linked NYtimes piece is worth reading.
I think it'd make sense to talk about imperialism, rather than militarism. Military is just a
tool. One could, for example, bribe another country's military leaders, or finance a paramilitary
force in the targeted state, or just organize a violence-inciting mass-media campaign to produce
the same result.
We'd need an alternative history of the Cold War to work through the ramifications of a less aggressive
Western military. Russia would have developed nuclear weapons even if there hadn't been an army
at its borders, and the borders of the Eastern bloc were arguably more the result of opportunity
than necessity. The colonial wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan and everywhere else could be similarly
described.
After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their
insanity. World War II taught a different lesson, perhaps because, in contrast to the previous
kerfuffle, both the Russian and American behemoths became fully engaged and unleashed their full
industrial and demographic might, sweeping their common foes from the field, and found themselves
confronting each other in dubious peace.
Both sides armed for the apocalypse with as many ways to bring about the end of civilization
as they could devise, all the while mindlessly meddling with each other around the globe. Eventually
the Russians gave up; their system really was as bad as we thought, and Moore's law is pitiless:
the gap expands exponentially. They've shrunk, and so has their military.
So why is America such a pre-eminent bully, able to defeat the rest of the world combined in
combat? Habit, pride, domestic politics, sure; but blame our allies as well. Britain and France
asked us to to kick ass in Libya, and Syria is not that different. We've got this huge death-dealing
machine and everyone tells us how to use it.
Ridiculous as it is, it's not nearly as bad as it was a hundred years ago, or seventy, or forty.
We may still be on course to extinguish human civilization, but warfare no longer looks like its
likely cause.
david 07.04.16 at 8:14 am
As you point out in fn1, nobody seems to ever fight "aggressive" wars. By the same token, there's
no agreed status quo ante. For France in 1913, the status quo ante bellum has Lorraine restored
to France. Also, Germany fractures into Prussia and everyone else, and the Germans should go back
to putting out local regionalist fires (as Austria-Hungary is busy doing) rather than challenging
French supremacy in Europe and Africa please.
The position advanced in the essay is one for
an era where ships do not hop from coaling station to coaling station, where the supremacy of
the Most Favoured Nation system means that powerful countries do not find their domestic politics
held hostage for access to raw materials controlled by other countries, where shipping lanes are
neutral as a matter of course, and where the Green Revolution has let rival countries be content
to bid, not kill, for limited resources. We can argue over whether this state of affairs is contingent
on the tiger-repelling rock or actual, angry tigers, but I don't think we disagree that this is
the state of affairs, at least for the countries powerful enough to matter.
But, you know, that's not advice that 1913 would find appealing, which is a little odd given
the conceit that this is about the Somme. The Concert of Europe bounced from war to war to war.
Every flag that permits war in this 'anti-militarist' position is met and then some. It was unending
crisis after crisis that miraculously never escalated to total war, but no country today would
regard crises of those nature as acceptable today hundreds of thousands of Germans were besieging
Paris in 1870! Hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen were dead! If Napoleon III had the Bomb he would
have used it. But he did not. There was no three score years of postwar consumer economy under
the peaceful shadow of nuclear armageddon.
Anderson 07.04.16 at 9:07 am
3: "After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their insanity."
One could only wish this were true. Germany was disarmed by force and promptly schemed for the
day it would rearm; Russia's civil war continued for some years; France and Britain disarmed because
they were broke, not because they'd recognized any folly.
Quiggin, I don't know if you read Daniel Larison at The American Conservative; his domestic
politics would likely horrify us both, but happily
jake the antisoshul sohulist 07.04.16 at 1:32 pm
Other than the reference to "the redempive power of war", the mythification of the military
is not mentioned in the definition of militarism. I don't think a definition of militarism can
focus only on the political/policy aspects and ignore the cultural aspects.
Militarism is as much cultural as it is political, and likely even more so.
Theophylact 07.04.16 at 2:17 pm
Tacitus:
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt,
pacem appellant (To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire: they make a
desolation and they call it peace).
LFC 07.04.16 at 4:55 pm
from the OP:
100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from
the catastrophe of the Great War
The counterargument to this statement is that the world's 'great powers' did indeed learn
something from the Great War: namely, they learned that great-power war is a pointless
endeavor. Hitler of course didn't learn that, which is, basically, why WW2 happened. But there
hasn't been a great-power war - i.e., a sustained conflict directly between two or more
'great' or major powers - since WW2 (or some wd say the Korean War qualifies as a great-power
war, in which case 1953 wd be the date of the end of the last great-power war).
The next step is to extend the learned lesson about great-power war to other kinds of war.
That extension has proven difficult, but there's no reason to assume it's forever impossible.
-
p.s. There are various extant definitions of 'great power', some of which emphasize factors
other than military power. For purposes of this comment, though, one can go with Mearsheimer's
definition: "To qualify as a great power, a state [i.e., country] must have sufficient
military assets to put up a serious fight in an all-out conventional war against the most
[militarily] powerful state in the world" (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), p.5).
Using this definition of 'great power', the last war in which two or more great powers
directly fought each other in any kind of sustained fashion (i.e. more than a short conflict
of roughly a week or two [or less]) was, as stated above, either WW2 or Korea (depending on
one's view of whether China qualified as a great power at the time of the Korean War).
Lupita 07.04.16 at 7:06 pm
ZM @ 7 quoting Mary Kaldor:
An emphasis on justice and accountability for war crimes, human rights violations and economic
crimes, is something that is demanded by civil society in all these conflicts. Justice is
probably the most significant policy that makes a human security approach different from
current stabilisation approaches.
Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further
war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace.
Kevin Cox 07.04.16 at 9:19 pm
The place to start is with the Efficient Market Hypothesis as the mechanism to allocate
resources. This hypothesis says that entities compete for markets. War is a tool of
competition for resources. Think Iraq.
Instead of allocating resources via markets let us allocate resources cooperatively via the
ideas of the Commons. Start with "Think like a Commoner: A short introduction to the Life of
the Commons" by David Bollier.
A country that uses this approach to the allocation of resources will not want to go to war
and will try to persuade other countries to use the same approach.
The place to start is with renewable energy. Find a way to "distribute renewable energy" based
on the commons and anti militarism will likely follow.
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 12:31 am
Lupita 07.04.16 at 10:22 pm @ 46 -
While the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and
company did, I doubt if starting a war of aggression is against U.S. law in an
enforceable way. However, since the war was completely unjustified, I suppose Bush could be
charged with murder (and many other crimes). This sort of question is now rising in the UK
with regard to Blair because of the Chilcot inquiry.
Ze K 07.05.16 at 1:29 pm
Not in internal national politics, but in international law. There's something called
'crimes againt peace', for example. Obviously it's not there to prosecute leaders of
boss-countries, but theoretically it could. And, in fact, the fact that it's accepted that the
leaders of powerful countries are not to be procesuted is exactly a case of perversion of
justice you are talking about no?
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 1:56 pm
Watson Ladd 07.05.16 at 3:57 am @ 56 -
According to what I read at the time the US, or at least some of its leadership, encouraged
the Georgian leadership to believe that if they tried to knock off a few pieces of Russia, the
US would somehow back them up if the project didn't turn out as well as hoped. Now, I get this
from the same media that called the Georgian invasion of Russia 'Russian aggression' so it may
not be very reliable, but that's what was said, and the invasion of a state the size of Russia
by a state the size of Georgia doesn't make much sense unless the latter thought they were
going to get some kind of help if things turned out badly. I guess the model was supposed to
be the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, but bombing the hell out of Serbia is one thing and
bombing the hell out of Russia quite another.
It is interesting in regard to Georgia 2008 to trace the related career of Mr. Saakashvili,
who was then the president of Georgia, having replaced Mr. Shevardnadze in one of those color
revolutions, and was reported to have said that he wanted Georgia to become America's Israel
in central Asia. The Georgians apparently did not relish this proposed role once they found
out what it entailed and kicked him out. He subsequently popped up in Ukraine, where according
to Wikipedia he is the governor of the Odessa Oblast, whatever that means. Again, I get this
from our media, so it may all be lies; but it does seem to make a kind of sense which I
probably don't need to spell out.
Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:10 pm
No, south Ossetia was a part of Georgia. They were fighting for autonomy (Georgia is a bit
of an empire itself), and Russian peacekeeping troops were placed there to prevent farther
infighting. One day, Georgian military, encouraged by US neocons, started shelling South
Ossetian capital, killing, among other people, some of the Russian peacekeeprs, and this is
how the 2008 war started.
Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:31 pm
a lot of these ethnic issues in Georgia are really the legacy of stalinism, when in many
places (Abkhazia, for sure) local populations suffered mass-repressions with ethnic Georgians
migrating there and becaming majorities (not to mention, bosses). Fasil Iskander, great Abkhaz
writer, described that. Once the USSR collapsed, it all started to unwind, and Georgia got
screwed. Oh well.
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 4:34 pm
Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:38 pm @ 80 -
The Russian ruling class experimented with being the US ruling class's buddy in the 1990s,
sort of. It didn't work well for them. The destruction of Yugoslavia, the business in Abkhazia
and Ossetia, the coup in Ukraine, the American intervention in Syria which must seem (heh) as
if aimed at the Russian naval base at Tartus, the extensions of NATO, the ABMs, and so on,
these cannot have been reassuring. Reassurance then had to come from taking up bordering
territory, building weapons, and the like. Let us hope the Russian leadership do not also come
to the conclusion that the best defense is a good offense.
Lupita 07.05.16 at 5:52 pm
We're a nation of killers.
Justice can ameliorate that problem. For example, Pinochet being indicted, charged, and
placed under house arrest until his death (though never convicted) for crimes against
humanity, murder, torture, embezzlement, arms trafficking, drugs trafficking, tax fraud, and
passport forgery and, in Argentina, Videla getting a life sentence plus another 500 being
convicted with many cases still in progress, at the very least may give pause to those who
would kill and torture as a career enhancement move in these countries and, hopefully,
throughout Latin America. Maybe one of these countries can at least indict Kissinger for
Operaciσn Cσndor and give American presidents something extra to plan for when planning their
covert operations.
For heads of state to stop behaving as if they were untouchable and people believing that they
are, we need more convictions, more accountability, more laws, more justice.
Asteele 07.05.16 at 7:42 pm
In a capitalist system if you can make money by impoverishing others you do it. There are
individual capitalists and firms that make money off of war, the fact that the public at large
sees no aggregate benefit in not a problem for them.
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 8:35 pm
LFC 07.05.16 at 5:28 pm @ 85 -
I think that, on the evidence, one must doubt (to put it mildly) that either the Russian or
the American leadership care whether Mr. Assad is a nice person or not. They have not worried
much about a lot of other not-nice people over recent decades as long as the not-nice people
seemed to serve their purposes. Hence I can only conclude that the business in Syria, which
goes back well before the appearance of the Islamic State, is dependent on some other
variable, like maybe the existence of a Russian naval base in mare nostrum. I'm just guessing,
of course; more advanced conspiratists see Israeli, Iranian, Saudi, and Turkish connections.
Note as well that the business in Ukraine involved a big Russian naval base. And I used to
heard it said that navies were obsolete!
ZM 07.06.16 at 7:06 am
There has been coverage in The Guardian about the Chilcot report into the UK military
interventions in Iraq.
"The former civil servant promised that the report would answer some of the questions raised
by families of the dead British soldiers. "The conversations we've had with the families were
invaluable in shaping some of the report," Chilcot said.
Some of the families will be at the launch of the report at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, at
Westminster. Others will join anti-war protesters outside who are calling for Blair to be
prosecuted for alleged war crimes at the international criminal court in The Hague.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday, Karen Thornton, whose son Lee was
killed in Iraq in 2006, said she was convinced that Blair had exaggerated intelligence about
Iraq's capabilities.
"If it is proved that he lied then obviously he should be held accountable for it," she said,
adding that meant a trial for war crimes. "He shouldn't be allowed to just get away with it,"
she said. But she did not express confidence that Chilcot's report would provide the
accountability that she was hoping for. "Nobody's going to be held to account and that's so
wrong," she said. "We just want the truth."
Chilcot insisted that any criticism would be supported by careful examination of the evidence.
"We are not a court not a judge or jury at work but we've tried to apply the highest
possible standards of rigorous analysis to the evidence where we make a criticism."
Jeremy Corbyn, who will respond to the report in parliament on Wednesday, is understood to
have concluded that international laws are neither strong nor clear enough to make any war
crimes prosecution a reality. The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if
the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war.
Corbyn is expected to fulfil a promise he made during his leadership campaign to apologise on
behalf of Labour for the war. He will speak in the House of Commons after David Cameron, who
is scheduled to make a statement shortly after 12.30pm. "
Only Tony Blair could read the Chilcot report and claim it vindicates his conduct.
LFC 07.06.16 at 5:48 pm
B. Dunbar @123
Interstate wars have declined, and the 'logic' you identify might be one of various reasons
for that.
The wars dominating the headlines today - e.g. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Ukraine/Donetsk/Russia - are not, however, classic interstate wars. They are either civil wars
or 'internationalized' civil wars or have a civil-war aspect. Thus the 'logic' of
business-wants-peace-and-trade doesn't really apply there. Apple doesn't want war w China but
Apple doesn't care that much whether there is a prolonged civil war in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan,
etc.
So even if one accepted the argument that 'capitalism' leads to peace, we'd be left w a set of
wars to which the argument doesn't apply. I don't have, obvs., the answer to the current
conflicts. I think (as already mentioned) that there are some steps that might prove helpful
in general if not nec. w.r.t. specific conflict x or y.
The Kaldor remark about reversing the predatory economy - by which I take it she means, inter
alia, black-market-driven, underground, in some cases criminal commerce connected to war - is
suggestive. Easier said than done, I'm sure. Plus strengthening peacekeeping. And one cd come
up w other things, no doubt.
Ze K 07.06.16 at 6:35 pm
@120, 121, yes, Georgians living in minority areas did suffer. But ethnic
cleansing/genocides that would've most likely taken place should the Georgian government have
had its way were prevented. Same as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine two years ago. This is not too
difficult to understand if you try is it? Similarly (to Georgians in Abkhasia) millions of
ethnic Russians suffered in the new central Asian republics, in Chechnya (all 100% were
cleansed, many killed), and, in a slightly softer manner, in the Baltic republics But that's
okay with you, right? Well deserved? It's only when Abkhazs attack Georgians, then it's the
outrage, and only because Russia was defending the Abkhazs, correct?
Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm
My impression since yesterday is that, while Brits are making a very big deal out of the
Chilcot report, with much commentary about how momentous it is and the huge impact it will
have, coverage of this event by the US media is notoriously subdued, particularly compared
with the hysterical coverage Brexit got just some days ago. This leads me to believe that it
is indeed justice that is feared the most by western imperialists such as Bush, Blair, Howard,
Aznar, and Kwaśniewski and the elites that supported them and continue to cover up for them. I
take this cowardly and creepy silence in the US media as an indicator that Pax Americana is so
weakened that it cannot withstand the light of justice being shined upon it and that the end
is near.
Anarcissie 07.07.16 at 3:46 pm
Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm @ 147 - For the kind of people in the US who pay attention to
such things, the Chilcot Report is not really news. And the majority don't care, as witness
the fortunes of the Clintons.
Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 12:25 am
Brett Dunbar 07.07.16 at 11:47 pm @ 160 -
If capitalist types are so totally against war, it's hard to understand why the grand
poster child of capitalism, the plutocratic United States, is so addicted to war. It is hard
to consider it an aberration when the US has attacked dozens of countries not threatening it
over the last fifty or sixty years, killed or injured or beggared or terrorized millions of
noncombatants, and maintains hundreds of overseas bases and a world-destroying nuclear
stockpile. What could the explanation possibly be?
As human powers of production increase, at least in potential, existing scarcities of basic
goods such as food, medicine, and housing are overcome. If people now become satisfied with
their standard of living - not totally satisfied, but satisfied enough not to sweat and strain
all the time for more - sales, profits, and employment will fall, and capitalists will become
less important. In order to retain their ruling-class role, there needs to be a constant
crisis of production-consumption which only the capitalist masters of industry can solve.
Hence new scarcities must be produced. The major traditional methods of doing this have been
imperialism, war, waste, and consumerism (including advertising). Conceded, major processes of
environmental destruction such as climate change and the vitiating of antibiotics may lead to
powerful new self-reinforcing scarcities which will take their place next to their traditional
relatives, so that producing new scarcities would be less of a problem.
Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 2:30 am
LFC 07.08.16 at 1:30 am @ 163:
'OTOH, I don't think capitalism esp. needs war to create this kind of scarcity .'
But then one must explain why the major capitalist powers have engaged in so much of it, since
it is so dirty and risky. I suppose one possible explanation is that whoever has the power to
do so engages in it, capitalist or not; it is hardly a recent invention. However, I am mindful
of the position of the US at the end of World War 2, with 50% of the worlds total productive
capacity. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive! So war turned out to be pretty handy for some
people. And now we have lots of them.
Matt_L 07.08.16 at 3:32 am
John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural
attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase
Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are
more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running
things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who
carry it out in the name of the state.
I also think that just reducing military spending or the capacity for military action is
not enough to counter serious militarism. Austria-Hungary was a very militaristic society, but
it spent the less on armaments than the other European Powers in the years leading up to 1914.
The leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy caused World War One by invading Serbia for
a crime committed by a Bosnian Serb subject of the Monarchy. They had some good guesses that
the Serbian military intelligence was involved, but not a lot of proof.
Franz Joseph and the other leaders chose to solve a foreign policy problem by placing armed
force before diplomacy and a complete criminal investigation. Their capacity to wage war
relative to the other great powers of Europe did not enter into their calculations. They
chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish
on a tight budget. Its all about mentality.
stevenjohnson 07.08.16 at 9:29 pm
"Great Power warfare became a lot less common after 1815, at the same point that the most
advanced of the great powers developed capitalism."
In Europe, locus of the alleged Long Peace, there were the Greek Rebellion; the First and
Second Italian Wars of Independence; the First and Second Schleswig Wars; the Seven Weeks War;
the Crimean War; the Franco-Prussian War; the First and Second Balkan Wars. Wars between a
major capitalist state and another well established modern state included the Opium Wars; the
Mexican War; the French invasion of Mexico; the War of the Triple Alliance; the War of the
Pacific; the Spanish-American War; the Russo-Japanese War. Assaults by the allegedly peaceful
capitalist nations against non-state societies or weak traditional states are too numerous to
remember, but the death toll was enormous, on a scale matching the slaughter of the World
Wars.
Further the tensions between the Great Powers threatened war on numerous occasions, such as
conflict over the Oregon territory; the Aroostook "war;" the Trent Affair; two Moroccan
crises; the Fashoda Incident again, these are too numerous to remember.
The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre
notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that
it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of
the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism
is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is
that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded
capitalist development.
Hidari 07.09.16 at 11:13 am
' Capitalist states tend to avoid war with their trading partners.'
This has an element of truth in it, but it can be parsed in a number of ways. For example,
'Rich, powerful countries tend to avoid war with other rich, powerful countries'. After all,
in the 2nd half of the 20th century, the US avoided going to war with Russia, despite having
clear economic interests in doing so (access to natural resources, markets) mainly because
Russia was strong (not least militarily) and the cost-benefit matrix never made sense (i.e.
from the Americans' point of view).
A much stronger case can be made that self-proclaimed Socialist states tend not to go to war
with each other. After all, there were big fallings out between the socialist (or 'socialist',
depending on your point of view) countries in the 20th century but they rarely turned to war,
and when they did (Vietnam-Cambodia, Vietnam-China) they were short term and relatively
limited in scope. The Sino-Soviet split was a split, not a war.
But again this is probably not the best way to look at it. A much stronger case can be made
that the basic reason for the non-appearance of a Chinese-Russian war was simply the size and
population of those countries. The risks outweighed any potential benefits.
Of course, between 1914 and 1945, lots of capitalist states went to war with each other.
Anarcissie 07.09.16 at 3:22 pm
Layman 07.09.16 at 2:59 pm @ 188 -
One explanation, I think already given, is that the capitalist powers were too busy with
imperial seizures in what we now call the Third World to fight one another. In the New World,
the United States and some South American states were busy annihilating the natives, speaking
of ethnic cleansing. If capitalism is a pacific influence, the behavior of the British and
American ruling classes since 1815 seems incomprehensible, right down to the present: the
plutocrat Clinton ought to be the peace candidate, not the scary war freak.
Hidari 07.09.16 at 5:44 pm
Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945
is because of the Pax Americana?
Most countries are too frightened to attack (at least directly) the United States. There is a
sense in which the US really is the 'Global Policeman'.
WaPo continues that Trump is "broadly noninterventionist, questioning the need for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization and calling for Europe to play a larger role in ensuring its
security." Page, too, "has regularly criticized U.S. intervention":
In one article for Global Policy Journal, he wrote, "From U.S. policies toward Russia to Iran
to China, sanctimonious expressions of moral superiority stand at the root of many problems
seen worldwide today."
Page wrote that the war in eastern Ukraine was "precipitated by U.S. meddling in the Maidan
revolution
And so, here we are: Trump is the lesser evil in this cycle. Vote Trump, save the world.
LFC 07.10.16 at 2:40 pm
Hidari @192
Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945
is because of the Pax Americana?
Started to write a long reply but decided no point. Shorter version: reasons for no
WW2-style-war in Europe from '45 to '90 are multiple; 'pax Americana' only one factor of many.
End of CW was destabilizing in various ways (e.g., wars in ex-Yugoslavia) but so far not
enough to reverse the overall trend in Europe. Decline in destructiveness of conflict in some
(not all) other parts of the world has to do in large part w change in nature/type of conflict
(sustained interstate wars have traditionally been the most destructive and they don't happen
much or at all anymore, for reasons that are somewhat debatable, but, again, pax Americana wd
be only one of multiple reasons, if that).
LFC 07.10.16 at 2:54 pm
Re Carter Page (see Ze K @194)
Page refused [speaking in Moscow] refused to comment specifically on the U.S. presidential
election, his relationship with Trump or U.S. sanctions against Russia, saying he was in
Russia as a "private citizen." He gave a lecture, titled "The Evolution of the World Economy:
Trends and Potential," in which he noted that Russia and China had achieved success in
Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on
mutual interest.
He generally avoided questions on U.S. foreign policy, but when one attendee asked him
whether he really believed the United States was a "liberal, democratic society," Page told
him to "read between the lines."
"If I'm understanding the direction you're coming from, I tend to agree with you that it's
not always as liberal as it may seem," he said. "I'm with you."
In a meeting with The Washington Post editorial board in March, Trump named Page, a former
Merrill Lynch executive in Moscow who later advised the Russian state energy giant Gazprom on
major oil and gas deals, as one of his foreign policy advisers. Page refused to say whether
his Moscow trip included a meeting with Russian officials. He is scheduled to deliver a
graduation address Friday at the New Economic School, a speech that some officials are
expected to attend.
Above quote is from the Stars & Stripes piece, evidently republished from WaPo, linked at the
'Washington's Blog' that Ze K linked to.
If you want to put for. policy in the hands of the likes of Carter Page (former Merrill Lynch
exec., Gazprom adviser), vote Trump all right.
HRC's for. policy advisers may not be great, but I don't think this guy Page is better. He
does have connections to the Russian govt as a past consultant, apparently, which is no doubt
why Ze K is so high on him.
Ze K 07.10.16 at 3:16 pm
You bet this guy Page is better. Anyone is better.
And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant? What the
fuck was that supposed to mean? Asshole much?
LFC 07.10.16 at 5:25 pm
And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant?
B.c Gazprom is a Russian state-owned company and a fair inference from your many comments on
this blog (not just this thread but others) is that you are, in general, favorably disposed to
the present Russian govt. and its activities. Not Gazprom in particular necessarily, but the
govt in general. You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what
they say.
You consistently attack HRC as a war-monger, as corrupt etc. You consistently say anyone wd
be better. "Vote Trump save the world." You said there was no Poland in existence in '39 when
the USSR invaded it. Your comments and exchanges in this thread are here for anyone to read,
so I don't have to continue.
Ze K 07.10.16 at 5:44 pm
"You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what they
say. "
You're right; come to think of it, you've been into slimeball-style slur for a while now,
and I should've gotten used to it already, and just ignored you. Fine, carry on.
Anarcissie 07.11.16 at 2:19 am
@Hidari 07.10.16 at 2:57 pm @ 197 -
Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically
(in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates
under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto
himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely
approximates the position and behavior of the present United States.
"... Then there is Hillary Clinton, who will be this year's nominee. Few Democrats have more consistently favored the use of military force. She voted for the Iraq War. As secretary of state, she urged President Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan. ..."
"... New York Times correspondent Mark Landler, author of the new book Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power, told me her aides have told him she favored shipping lethal defensive military equipment to the government of Ukraine after the Russian invasion, something Obama rejected. ..."
"... She pushed for U.S. intervention in Libya. She proposed similar action in Syria. She has recounted her advice to her husband in dealing with Serbia in 1999: "I urged him to bomb. ..."
"... Clinton thinks "that American intervention does more good than harm, and that the writ of the United States properly reaches, as George W. Bush once declared, into 'any dark corner of the world.'" ..."
"... Robert Gates, who was defense secretary under Obama, likes and admires Clinton. But when she pressed Obama to bomb Moammar Gadhafi's forces-which Landler says he probably would not have done otherwise-Gates resisted, arguing that Libya was not a vital U.S. interest and that there was no telling what would happen next. "In meetings, I would ask, 'Can I just finish the two wars we're already in before you go looking for new ones?'" he wrote later. ..."
"... Clinton has gotten endless criticism for her handling of the 2012 attacks on a U.S. facility in Benghazi. She deserves more, but has gotten far less, for recommending an intervention that led to that attack and left Libya in violent turmoil that continues today. ..."
"... The question is why a child of the 1960s, whose husband strenuously avoided being drafted for the Vietnam War, would grow so fond of military power. Obama needs a compelling reason to use force. Clinton needs a compelling reason not to. ..."
"... Obama made the mistake of intervening in Libya, but in a recent interview with The Atlantic, he admitted, "It didn't work," and "Libya is a mess." Clinton, however, has never expressed second thoughts. During his recent visit to Chicago, I asked Landler about her ability to confront the possibility she was wrong. ..."
"... In that instance, she apparently didn't learn from our failed military intervention. If she becomes president, I'm guessing, she'll get another chance. ..."
In an era of endless military conflict, anti-war sentiment abides among Democrats. In 2004, their
presidential nomination went to John Kerry, who was strongly critical of George W. Bush's handling
of the war in Iraq. In 2008, they chose Barack Obama, largely because he had opposed that war. This
year, 12 million people cast ballots for Bernie Sanders, who voted against it.
According to Gallup, 68 percent of Democrats think the Iraq War was a mistake-compared with just
31 percent of Republicans. Two in three reject the use of ground combat troops against Islamic State.
Then there is Hillary Clinton, who will be this year's nominee. Few Democrats have more consistently
favored the use of military force. She voted for the Iraq War. As secretary of state, she urged President
Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
New York Times correspondent Mark Landler, author of the new book Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton,
Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power, told me her aides have told him she
favored shipping lethal defensive military equipment to the government of Ukraine after the Russian
invasion, something Obama rejected.
She pushed for U.S. intervention in Libya. She proposed similar action in Syria. She has recounted
her advice to her husband in dealing with Serbia in 1999: "I urged him to bomb."
Most Democrats, particularly Obama, have learned to be wary of entangling the United States in
wars of choice. But not Clinton. Despite the disaster in Iraq, the failure in Afghanistan and the
chaos in Libya, she remains a hawk at heart.
Landler, who covered Obama and Clinton for The New York Times, sees a clear difference between
her approach to foreign policy and that of the president she served. Obama believes "the United States
resorts too readily to military force to defend its interests," he writes. Clinton thinks "that
American intervention does more good than harm, and that the writ of the United States properly reaches,
as George W. Bush once declared, into 'any dark corner of the world.'"
Robert Gates, who was defense secretary under Obama, likes and admires Clinton. But when she
pressed Obama to bomb Moammar Gadhafi's forces-which Landler says he probably would not have done
otherwise-Gates resisted, arguing that Libya was not a vital U.S. interest and that there was no
telling what would happen next. "In meetings, I would ask, 'Can I just finish the two wars we're
already in before you go looking for new ones?'" he wrote later.
Clinton has gotten endless criticism for her handling of the 2012 attacks on a U.S. facility
in Benghazi. She deserves more, but has gotten far less, for recommending an intervention that led
to that attack and left Libya in violent turmoil that continues today.
The question is why a child of the 1960s, whose husband strenuously avoided being drafted
for the Vietnam War, would grow so fond of military power. Obama needs a compelling reason to use
force. Clinton needs a compelling reason not to.
Landler attributes this bias to several factors, including her conservative Midwestern upbringing,
her rapport with generals and, in the words of one staffer, "a textbook view of American exceptionalism."
Other reasons come to mind. She saw Democratic senators politically damaged by voting against
the 1991 war against Iraq, and she was not about to take the risk of opposing the next one. As a
woman, she doubtless has felt the need to demonstrate that she can be as tough-as that term is typically
defined in American politics-as any male leader.
Obama made the mistake of intervening in Libya, but in a recent interview with The Atlantic,
he admitted, "It didn't work," and "Libya is a mess." Clinton, however, has never expressed second
thoughts. During his recent visit to Chicago, I asked Landler about her ability to confront the possibility
she was wrong.
"I don't find the same evidence of a learning curve with her," he said. "I would have liked to
see a little more introspection from her on that, because I think that's the key case where she led
the charge, it didn't go the way they hoped it would and there are some really important lessons
to be drawn."
In that instance, she apparently didn't learn from our failed military intervention. If she
becomes president, I'm guessing, she'll get another chance.
"... The truth is that the pretext for military intervention was almost as thin in Yugoslavia as it was in Libya. ..."
"... SANCTIONS HAVE been the favorite smart weapon of both Clintons. Iraq was the target country for Bill in the 1990s, as Iran would be for Hillary starting in 2009. The point of sanctions is to inflict pain, in response to which (it is hoped) the people will blame their government. The point is therefore also to create the conditions for regime change. Neither of the Clintons seems to have absorbed a central lesson of the Amnesty International Report on Cuba in 197576: that the "persistence of fear, real or imagined, of counterrevolutionary conspiracies" bore the primary responsibility for "the early [Cuban] excesses in the treatment of political prisoners"; and that "the removal of that fear has been largely responsible for the improvements in conditions." Both Clintons have felt pressed to perform supererogatory works to show that liberals can be tough. For Mrs. Clinton, there is the additional need-from self-demand as much as external pressure-to prove that a female leader can be tougher than her male counterpart. ..."
"... Those sentences are notable for a historical omission and a non sequitur. The NATO expansion that began under George H. W. Bush, was enhanced in the presidency of Bill Clinton and continued under George W. Bush and Obama, was not a widely appreciated moderate policy, as Mrs. Clinton implies. The policy was subject to skeptical challenge from the first, and one of its sharpest critics was George F. Kennan. (He described it, coincidentally, as "a tragic mistake.") Leaving aside the abridgment of history, there is a disturbing logical jump in Clinton's dismissal of the challenge regarding NATO. The gratitude expressed by newly admitted member states does nothing at all to "refute" the fact that Vladimir Putin, along with many Western diplomats, thought the postCold War expansion of a Cold War entity was a hostile policy directed provocatively against Russia in its own backyard. ..."
"... Her sentences about NATO could have been written by Tony Blair; and this explains why at least three neoconservatives-Eliot A. Cohen, Max Boot and Robert Kagan, in ascending order of enthusiasm-have indicated that a Clinton presidency would be agreeable to them. She is a reliable option for them. ..."
"... Her comparison of Putin to Hitler in March 2014 and her likening of Crimean Russians to Sudeten Germans were reminiscent, too, of the specter of Munich evoked by an earlier secretary of state, Dean Rusk, to defend the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1965-the kind of tragic mistake that Hillary Clinton seems prepared to repeat for the most laudable of humanitarian reasons. ..."
An incorrigible belief in the purity of one's motives is among the most dangerous endowments a
politician can possess.
... ... ...
Clinton gave two pages to the war in her memoir Living History. She sympathized there with the burden of responsibility borne by
President Johnson for "a war he'd inherited," which turned out to be "a tragic mistake." Johnson
is her focus: the man of power who rode a tiger he could not dismount. On a second reading, "mistake"
may seem too light a word to characterize a war that destroyed an agrarian culture forever and killed
between one and three million Vietnamese. "Mistake" is also the word that Hillary Clinton has favored
in answering questions about her vote for the Iraq War.
Like every Democrat who has run for
president since 1960, Clinton sometimes talks as if she wished foreign policy would go away. A president's
most important responsibility, she agrees, is to strengthen the bonds of neighborhood and community
at home, to assure a decent livelihood for working Americans and an efficient system of benefits
for all. Yet her four years as secretary of state-chronicled in a second volume of memoirs,
Hard Choices-have licensed her
to speak with the authority of a veteran in the world of nations. War and diplomacy, as that book
aimed to show, have become an invaluable adjunct to her skill set. Clinton would want us to count
as well a third tool besides war and diplomacy. She calls it (after a coinage by Joseph Nye) "smart
power." Smart power, for her, denotes a kind of pressure that may augment the force of arms and the
persuasive work of diplomacy. It draws on the network of civil society, NGOs, projects for democracy
promotion and managed operations of social media, by which the United States over the past quarter
of a century has sought to weaken the authority of designated enemies and to increase leverage on
presumptive or potential friends. Smart power is supposed to widen the prospects of liberal society
and assist the spread of human rights. Yet the term itself creates a puzzle. Hillary Clinton's
successful advocacy of violent regime change in Libya and her continuing call to support armed insurgents
against the Assad government in Syria have been arguments for war, but arguments that claim a special
exemption. For these wars-both the one we led and the one we should have led-were "humanitarian wars."
This last phrase Clinton has avoided using, just as she has avoided explaining her commitment to
the internationalist program known as "Responsibility to Protect," with its broad definition of genocide
and multiple triggers for legitimate intervention. Instead, in a Democratic primary debate in October
2015, she chose to characterize the Libya war as "smart power at its best."
The NATO action to overthrow Muammar el-Qaddafi, in which Clinton played so decisive a role,
has turned out to be a catastrophe with strong resemblances to Iraq-a catastrophe smaller in degree
but hardly less consequential in its ramifications, from North Africa to the Middle East to southern
Europe. The casus belli was the hyperbolic threat by Qaddafi to annihilate a rebel force in Benghazi.
His vow to hunt down the rebels "like rats" door to door could be taken to mean a collective punishment
of inhabitants of the city, but Qaddafi had marched from the west to the east of Libya, in command
of an overwhelming force, without the occurrence of any such massacre, and the Pentagon and U.S.
intelligence assigned low credibility to the threat. Clinton took more seriously an alarmist reading
of Qaddafi by Bernard-Henri Lιvy, Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron, Susan Rice and Samantha Power,
and chose to interpret his threat as a harbinger of "genocide."
Landler, in his book Alter Egos on the Clinton-Obama relationship, joins the consensus
that has lately emerged from the reporting of Patrick Cockburn, Anne Barnard and other journalists
on the ground. "Libya," Landler writes, "has descended into a state of Mad Maxlike anarchy";
the country is now "a seedbed for militancy that has spread west and south across Africa"; it "has
become the most important Islamic State stronghold outside Syria and Iraq"; "it sends waves of desperate
migrants across the Mediterranean, where they drown in capsized vessels within sight of Europe."
Clinton's most recent comments, however, leave no doubt that she continues to believe in the healing
virtue of smart power. The belief appears to be genuine and not tactical.
FOLLOW HER definition a little further and a host of perplexities arise. Cyber war could presumably
be justified as a use of smart power, on the Clinton model, since it damages the offensive capabilities
of a hostile power in an apparently bloodless way. Shall we therefore conclude that the deployment
of the Stuxnet worm against Iran's nuclear program was an achievement of smart power? Or consider
a related use that would disrupt the flow of water or electricity in a city of three million persons
controlled by a government hostile to the United States-an action aimed at stirring discontents to
spur an insurrection. Could that be called smart power? We approach a region in which terminological
ingenuity may skirt the edge of sophistry; yet this is the rhetorical limbo in which a good deal
of U.S. policy is conceived and executed.
Clinton also plainly has in view the civil associations that we subsidize abroad, and the democracy-promotion
groups, funded indirectly through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and
other organizations. The nonviolent protests that turned bloody in Tahrir Square in Cairo, and in
the Maidan in Kiev, received indications of American support by means both avowed and unavowed-a
fact acknowledged by Victoria Nuland (assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs)
when in December 2013 she said that more than $5 billion had been spent on democracy promotion in
Ukraine since 1992. If the story of the Syrian Civil War is ever fully told, we are likely to discover
that the early "liberal" or "moderate" rebels were encouraged in their misreading of U.S. intentions
through social-media messaging approved by forces within the U.S. government.
In Ideal Illusions-a study
of the history of NGOs, the international culture of rights and U.S. foreign policy-James Peck noticed
how the responsibilities of the caretakers of human rights had expanded after the 1970s "from prisoners
of conscience to the rights of noncombatants to democratization to humanitarian intervention." It
is the last of these elements that completes the R2P package; and Hillary Clinton is among its warmest
partisans. The Western powers have a moral obligation to intervene, she believes, especially when
that means guarding the rights of women and assuring the welfare of the neediest children. Her mistakes
in the cause have been not tragic like President Johnson's in Vietnam but, as she sees them, small,
incidental and already too harshly judged. One ought to err on the side of action, of intervention.
And military intervention in this regard bears a likeness to the "community intervention" that may
save the life of a child in an abusive family.
The bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were, among other things, an experiment to
prove the neoconservative strategy of "force projection." The experiment did not work out as planned.
By contrast, the test for liberal interventionists was Kosovo, and popular memory has abetted the
legend that Kosovo was a success. Thus Anne-Marie Slaughter was able to
write in a tweet
regarding the Munich Security Conference of February 2014: "Contrast b/w Serb-Kosovo panel this morning
& ME panel now at #msc50 so striking; in Balkans US was willing to ACT w/ diplomacy AND force." Recall
that, in order to create the nation of Kosovo, NATO acted against the nation of Yugoslavia with smart
power whose leading articulation was seventy-seven days of bombing. The satisfied pronouncements
on Kosovo and Libya that emanate from liberal interventionists show a striking continuity. As a director
of policy planning in Clinton's State Department, Slaughter had written to her boss three days after
the start of the NATO bombing of Libya: "I have NEVER been prouder of having worked for you."
The truth is that the pretext for military intervention was almost as thin in Yugoslavia as
it was in Libya. There, too, genocide was said to be in progress-the slaughter of tens of thousands
of ethnic Albanians-but the reports were chimerical. In
First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and
the Destruction of Yugoslavia, David Gibbs concluded that approximately two thousand
had been killed before the NATO bombing; whereas, during the bombing itself and in retaliation for
it, Serbian security forces killed approximately ten thousand. Given the status of the episode in
liberal mythology, the treatment of Kosovo in Living History is oddly minimal: less than a
paragraph, all told, scattered over several chapters. Living History was published in 2003;
and it seems possible that Clinton had an inkling of the mob violence that would break out in March
2004 in the nationwide pogrom against the Serbs of Kosovo-violence that would lead in early 2016
to the construction of tent cities in the capital, Pristina, and the firing of tear gas canisters
in parliament to protest the abridgment of the political rights of the remaining ethnic minority.
The aftermath of the Kosovo intervention has recently entered a new chapter. "How
Kosovo Was Turned Into Fertile Ground for ISIS" was the astute headline of a New York Times
story by Carlotta Gall, on May 21, 2016. Gall's opening sentence offers a symptomatic tableau:
"Every Friday, just yards from a statue of Bill Clinton with arm aloft in a cheery wave, hundreds
of young bearded men make a show of kneeling to pray on the sidewalk outside an impoverished mosque
in a former furniture store."
SANCTIONS HAVE been the favorite smart weapon of both Clintons. Iraq was the target country
for Bill in the 1990s, as Iran would be for Hillary starting in 2009. The point of sanctions is to
inflict pain, in response to which (it is hoped) the people will blame their government. The point
is therefore also to create the conditions for regime change. Neither of the Clintons seems to have
absorbed a central lesson of the Amnesty International Report on Cuba in 197576: that the "persistence
of fear, real or imagined, of counterrevolutionary conspiracies" bore the primary responsibility
for "the early [Cuban] excesses in the treatment of political prisoners"; and that "the removal of
that fear has been largely responsible for the improvements in conditions." Both Clintons have felt
pressed to perform supererogatory works to show that liberals can be tough. For Mrs. Clinton, there
is the additional need-from self-demand as much as external pressure-to prove that a female leader
can be tougher than her male counterpart.
Landler's account suggests that neither the Iran nuclear deal nor the restoration of diplomatic
relations with Cuba would have been likely to occur in a Hillary Clinton presidency. When President
Obama
announced the thaw with Cuba in December 2014, he said that the United States "wants to be a
partner in making the lives of ordinary Cubans a little bit easier, more free, more prosperous."
Clinton, by contrast, warned that the Cuban regime should not mistake the gesture for a relaxation
of hostility; and
on a visit to Miami in July 2015, she threw in a characteristic warning and proviso: "Engagement
is not a gift to the Castros. It's a threat to the Castros." She thereby subverted the meaning of
Obama's policy while ostensibly supporting the measure itself.
"Superpowers
Don't Get to Retire" was the title and message of a New Republic essay by Robert Kagan,
published in May 2014, about the time it became clear that President Obama would not be confronting
Russia over its annexation of Crimea and would disappoint the neoconservative appetite for regime
change in Syria. Writing in Hard Choices of the eastward expansion of NATO, Clinton concurred:
"In the wake of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in early 2014, some have argued that
NATO expansion either caused or exacerbated Russia's aggression. I disagree with that argument,
but the most convincing voices refuting it are those European leaders and people who express their
gratitude for NATO membership."
Those sentences are notable for a historical omission and a non sequitur. The NATO expansion
that began under George H. W. Bush, was enhanced in the presidency of Bill Clinton and continued
under George W. Bush and Obama, was not a widely appreciated moderate policy, as Mrs. Clinton implies.
The policy was subject to skeptical challenge from the first, and one of its sharpest critics was
George F. Kennan. (He described it, coincidentally, as "a tragic mistake.") Leaving aside the abridgment
of history, there is a disturbing logical jump in Clinton's dismissal of the challenge regarding
NATO. The gratitude expressed by newly admitted member states does nothing at all to "refute" the
fact that Vladimir Putin, along with many Western diplomats, thought the postCold War expansion
of a Cold War entity was a hostile policy directed provocatively against Russia in its own backyard.
It would do no harm to her persuasiveness if Clinton admitted a degree of truth in the case made
by her opponents, whether on the Libya war, the advisability of repeating that experiment in Syria,
or the innocent design of propagating democracy that drove the expansion of NATO. An incorrigible
belief in the purity of one's motives is among the most dangerous endowments a politician can possess.
Her sentences about NATO could have been written by Tony Blair; and this explains why at least
three neoconservatives-Eliot A. Cohen, Max Boot and Robert Kagan, in ascending order of enthusiasm-have
indicated that a Clinton presidency would be agreeable to them. She is a reliable option for them.
Her comparison of Putin to Hitler in March 2014 and her likening of Crimean Russians to Sudeten
Germans were reminiscent, too, of the specter of Munich evoked by an earlier secretary of state,
Dean Rusk, to defend the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1965-the kind of tragic mistake that Hillary
Clinton seems prepared to repeat for the most laudable of humanitarian reasons.
"... The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo. ..."
"... For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016." ..."
"... But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people. ..."
"... The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people. ..."
"... The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere with his populist message. ..."
"... Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare ..."
The People's Summit in Chicago June 17-19 dramatically displayed both the strengths and the vulnerabilities
of what has emerged in 2016 as one of the most potentially powerful movements for fundamental change
in the United States in many decades. The event, which brought together 3,000 committed movement
activists to rally in support of the "political revolution" given impetus by Bernie Sanders' campaign,
was an opportunity to ensure that the movement will not dissipate in the wake of Hillary Clinton's
clinching the Democratic nomination.
The leaders of the movement sought to use the summit to reconcile conflicting activist views on
the relationship between movement organizations and electoral politics. The summit may have succeeded
in keeping the coalition of those who privilege electoral politics and those who see it as a distraction
from their local struggles from splitting up. But despite the political sophistication and pragmatism
of the organizers, the gathering failed to deal seriously with the problem of the "permanent war
state" -- the central power bloc in the US government that looms menacingly over everything the movement
hopes to accomplish.
The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the
old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he
likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to
appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real
accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement
for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control
most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would
benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that
the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon
that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo.
But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who
introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi
Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change
in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that
keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not
Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for
war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it
was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees,
drawing perhaps 30 people.
The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life.
The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the
primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated
foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in
Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare
in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that
national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people.
It is not difficult to see why Sanders did not take on that larger issue. The power of the
military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been
the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the
risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US
global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for
politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to
people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and
fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared
that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would
force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere
with his populist message.
The permanent war state also appears to be outside the political comfort zone of National Nurses
United, the single most influential organization in planning and funding the People's Summit. As
a senior official of National Nurses United explained, the organization is able to talk about corporate
control of the health care system because nurses constantly see the consequences in their own work,
but most have no such personal experiences enabling them to talk about the war system.
But despite these understandable reasons for taking a pass on the issue, the leadership of the
movement inspired by the Sanders campaign is making a big mistake by failing to take on the problem
of the permanent war state. The popular organizations represented in Chicago understand this, but
they have hesitated to go up against the most powerful combination bureaucratic interests the world
has ever known, in part because they have not had any clear idea about how those interests could
be defeated. What has been not been tried, however, is a strategy that attacks the war system where
it is most vulnerable -- the fact that the war system bureaucrats have systematically pursued their
own personal and institutional interests at the expense of the American people.
The publicly available records of US intervention and war, especially since the beginning of the
Cold War, reveal an endless succession of policies and programs that were utterly useless and provoked
reactions from states and from non-state actors that threatened the safety of the American people.
But the policy makers preferred those policies, because they gave them and their organizations more
power, more budgetary resources, more people under their command, more new technology, more foreign
bases and perquisites, and more lucrative jobs and contracts when they leave the government for private
companies.
All the services were looking for a boost in military appropriations when they pushed Presidents
John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to intervene militarily in Vietnam. The US Air Force sold its
"shock and awe" strategy for regime change in Iraq to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in
order to capture a larger share of the military budget. The CIA got control over a major new mission
when it convinced President George W. Bush to launch a drone war in Pakistan.
But the American people suffered the direct and indirect consequences of these wars in each case.
The fundamental conflict between the national interest and the personal and bureaucratic interests
of the policy makers of the permanent war state explains why the system has continued to produce
uniformly disastrous policies decade after decade.
So the strategy of the movement that the Sanders campaign has mobilized must include a broadly
concerted campaign that explains to young people, disaffected working-class people and others how
the permanent war state produces winners and losers. The winners are the national security organs
themselves, as well as those who make careers and fortunes from the permanent state of war. The losers
are those who must suffer the socioeconomic and other consequences of such reckless policies. Such
a campaign should aim at nothing less than taking away the flow of money and the legal authority
that the permanent war state has seized on the pretext of "threats" that are largely of its own making.
Even though the permanent war state seems to be at the peak of its power, like all essentially
hollow institutions, it has a serious political vulnerability. Millions of Americans know that the
wars the war-state agencies have wrought over the past half century -- from the Vietnam War to the
war in Afghanistan -- were worse than useless. So the legitimacy of the permanent war state is extremely
tenuous. A determined campaign to challenge that legitimacy, carried out with sufficient resources
over a few years with the participation of a broad coalition, could shake it to its roots. Such a
campaign must be included in the work to open up new political spaces and propel the movement for
change. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission
.
Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and historian writing on US national
security policy. His latest book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear
Scare , was published in February of 2014. Follow him on Twitter:
@GarethPorter .
"... Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. ..."
"... The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea - 125mm and 200ea - 1[55 mm]. ..."
WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT. NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED SECRET//NOFORN .
TEXT: 1. ( S//NF ) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Weapons from the former Libya
military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to
the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons
shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm
and 155mm howitzers missiles.
2.( S//NF }During Ihe immediate altermath of, and following the
uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in
October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the
former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were
shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and
the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to
the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The
ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to
hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo. (NFI)
3. ( S//NF ) The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August
2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers
missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500
Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and
approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea - 125mm and 200ea - 1[55
mm].
(b)(1) Sec. 1. 4(c).(b)(3): 10§USC 424,(b)(3):50§USC 3024(i)
REDACTED
CLASSIFIED
"... If Donald Trump, as seems more than likely, prevails in the GOP primary, then a number of neocons may defect to the Clinton campaign. Already Robert Kagan announced in the Washington Post ..."
"... The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising. In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... For its part, neoconservatism has always had a nationalistic streak. But Trump represents everything that the neocons believed that they had purged from the GOP. He represents continuity with the Buchananite wing, the belief that America should tend to its own knitting before launching hopeless wars abroad. When it comes to foreign policy, however, the second generation of neocons such as Kagan does not trace its lineage back to Ohio Senator Robert Taft but to the one that Republicans in the early 1950s reviled: the Truman administration. ..."
Anyone looking for further converts to the Hillary Clinton campaign might do well to look at the
Marco Rubio campaign. If Clinton is the leading liberal hawk, Rubio is the foremost neocon candidate.
In 2014 National Review published an article about him titled "The
neocons return."
Whether it's Cuba or Iran or Russia, he stakes out the most
intransigent line: "I disagree with voices in my own party who argue we should not engage at
all, who warn we should heed the words of John Quincy Adams not to go 'abroad, in search of monsters
to destroy.'" Not surprisingly, he's surrounded himself with neocon advisers, ranging from Max Boot
to Jamie Fly to Elliott Abrams.
If Donald Trump, as seems more than likely, prevails in the GOP primary, then a number of
neocons may defect to the Clinton campaign. Already
Robert Kagan announced in the Washington Post on Thursday that he intends to back Hillary
Clinton if Donald Trump receives the GOP nomination. The fact is that the loyalty of the neocons
has always been to an ideology of American exceptionalism, not to a particular party.
This is what separates the neocon conversion to Clinton from previous examples of Republicans
endorsing Barack Obama. Colin Powell wasn't making an ideological statement. He was making a practical
one, based on his distaste for where the GOP was headed. For the neocons this is a much more heartfelt
moment. They have invested decades in trying to reshape the GOP into their own image, and were quite
successful at it. But now a formidable challenge is taking place as the GOP reverts to its traditional
heritage.
The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising.
In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal,
wrote that the fledgling neoconservatives represented "something of a swing group between the two
major parties." He was right. The neoconservatives had their home in the Democratic Party in the
1960s. Then they marched rightward, in reaction to the rise of the adversary culture inside the Democratic
Party. George McGovern's run for the presidency in 1972, followed by the Jimmy Carter presidency,
sent them into the arms of Ronald Reagan and the GOP.
But it wasn't until the George W. Bush presidency that the neocons became the dominant foreign
policy force inside the GOP. They promptly proceeded to wreck his presidency by championing the war
in Iraq. Today, having wrecked it, they are now threatening to bolt the GOP and support Hillary Clinton
rather than Donald Trump for the presidency.
Something like this scenario is
what I predicted in the New York Times in July 2014. Trump wasn't around then as a force
inside the GOP. But already it seemed clear that some of the leading neocons such as Kagan were receptive
to Clinton. Now, in a Washington Post column, Kagan has gone all in.
He decries Republican obstructionism, antipathy to Obama, and the rise of Trump. The tone is apocalyptic.
According to
Kagan,
"So what to do now? The Republicans' creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to
others the job the party failed to carry out. For this former Republican, and perhaps for others,
the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country
still can be."
This itself represents a curious case of neocon hyperbole. Kagan is an eloquent writer, but he
elides the fact that many of Trump's positions are not all that different from what the GOP has espoused
in the past when it comes to domestic issues. It is on foreign affairs where Trump represents a marked
shift and it is this that truly troubles the neocon wing.
Trump has made it clear that he's dubious about foreign interventions. He's indicated that he
would treat with Russian president Vladimir Putin. His entire foreign policy credo, such as it is,
seems to have a
Jacksonian pedigree-don't tread on me.
For its part, neoconservatism has always had a nationalistic streak. But Trump represents
everything that the neocons believed that they had purged from the GOP. He represents continuity
with the Buchananite wing, the belief that America should tend to its own knitting before launching
hopeless wars abroad. When it comes to foreign policy, however, the second generation of neocons
such as Kagan does not trace its lineage back to Ohio Senator Robert Taft but to the one that Republicans
in the early 1950s reviled: the Truman administration.
Here we come full circle. The origins of the neocons are in the Democratic Party. Should Clinton
become the Democratic nominee and Trump the Republican one, a number of neocons may make common cause
with Clinton. Watch Rubio's ranks first.
Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.
"... Prominent neocon Robert Kagan has endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, saying she represents the best hope for saving the United States from populist billionaire Donald Trump, who has repudiated the neoconservative cause of U.S. military interventions in line with Israel's interests. ..."
"... Then referring to himself, he added, "For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
"... Kagan, who I've known since the 1980s when he was a rising star on Ronald Reagan's State Department propaganda team (selling violent right-wing policies in Central America), has been signaling his affection for Clinton for some time, at least since she appointed him as an adviser to her State Department and promoted his wife Victoria Nuland, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, to be the State Department's chief spokesperson. Largely because of Clinton's patronage, Nuland rose to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and oversaw the provocative "regime change" in Ukraine in 2014. ..."
"... "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." ..."
"... Now, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush's disastrous Iraq War, is now abandoning the Republican Party in favor of Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... While Kagan's op-ed surely makes some accurate points about Republicans, his endorsement of Hillary Clinton raises a different issue for Democrats: Do they want a presidential candidate who someone as savvy as Kagan knows will perpetuate neocon strategies around the world? Do Democrats really trust Hillary Clinton to handle delicate issues, such as the Syrian conflict, without resorting to escalations that may make the neocon disasters under George W. Bush look minor by comparison? ..."
"... Perhaps Robert Kagan's endorsement of Hillary Clinton and what that underscores about the likely foreign policy of a second Clinton presidency might finally force war or peace to the fore of the campaign. ..."
Exclusive: Hillary Clinton's cozy ties to Washington's powerful neocons
have paid off with the endorsement of Robert Kagan, one of the most influential neocons. But it also
should raise questions among Democrats about what kind of foreign policy a President Hillary Clinton
would pursue, writes Robert Parry.
Prominent neocon Robert Kagan has endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, saying
she represents the best hope for saving the United States from populist billionaire Donald Trump,
who has repudiated the neoconservative cause of U.S. military interventions in line with Israel's
interests.
In a Washington Post
op-ed published on Thursday, Kagan excoriated the Republican Party for creating the conditions
for Trump's rise and then asked, "So what to do now? The Republicans' creation will soon be let loose
on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out."
Then referring to himself, he added, "For this former Republican, and perhaps for others,
the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be saved, but
the country still can be."
While many of Kagan's observations about the Republican tolerance and even encouragement of bigotry
are correct, the fact that a leading neocon, a co-founder of the infamous Project for the New American
Century, has endorsed Clinton raises questions for Democrats who have so far given the former New
York senator and Secretary of State mostly a pass on her pro-interventionist policies.
The fact is that Clinton has generally marched in lock step with the neocons as they have implemented
an aggressive "regime change" strategy against governments and political movements that don't toe
Washington's line or that deviate from Israel's goals in the Middle East. So she has backed coups,
such as in Honduras (2009) and Ukraine (2014); invasions, such as Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011); and
subversions such as Syria (from 2011 to the present) all with various degrees of disastrous results.
Yet, with the failure of Republican establishment candidates to gain political traction against
Trump, Clinton has clearly become the choice of many neoconservatives and "liberal interventionists"
who favor continuation of U.S. imperial designs around the world. The question for Democrats now
is whether they wish to perpetuate those war-like policies by sticking with Clinton or should switch
to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who offers a somewhat less aggressive (though vaguely defined) foreign policy.
Sanders has undermined his appeal to anti-imperialist Democrats by muting his criticism of Clinton's
"regime change" strategies and concentrating relentlessly on his message of "income inequality" for
which Clinton has disingenuously dubbed him a "single-issue candidate." Whether Sanders has the will
and the time to reorient his campaign to question Clinton's status as the new neocon choice remains
in doubt.
A Reagan Propagandist
Kagan, who I've known since the 1980s when he was a rising star on Ronald Reagan's State Department
propaganda team (selling violent right-wing policies in Central America), has been signaling his
affection for Clinton for some time, at least since she appointed him as an adviser to her State
Department and promoted his wife Victoria Nuland, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney,
to be the State Department's chief spokesperson. Largely because of Clinton's patronage, Nuland rose
to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and oversaw the provocative
"regime change" in Ukraine in 2014.
Later in 2014, Kagan told The New York Times that he hoped that his neocon views which he had
begun to call "liberal interventionist" would prevail in a possible Hillary Clinton administration.
The Times reported that Clinton "remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring
their hopes" and quoted Kagan as saying:
"I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she
will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not
going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."
Now, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush's
disastrous Iraq War, is now abandoning the Republican Party in favor of Hillary Clinton.
... ... ...
While Kagan's op-ed surely makes some accurate points about Republicans, his endorsement of
Hillary Clinton raises a different issue for Democrats: Do they want a presidential candidate who
someone as savvy as Kagan knows will perpetuate neocon strategies around the world? Do Democrats
really trust Hillary Clinton to handle delicate issues, such as the Syrian conflict, without resorting
to escalations that may make the neocon disasters under George W. Bush look minor by comparison?
Will Clinton even follow the latest neocon dream of "regime change" in Moscow as the ultimate
way of collapsing Israel's lesser obstacles - Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian
resistance? Does Clinton have the wisdom to understand that neocon schemes are often half-baked (remember
"the cakewalk" in Iraq) and that the risk of overthrowing Vladimir Putin in Moscow might lead not
to some new pliable version of Boris Yeltsin but to a dangerous Russian nationalist ready to use
the nuclear codes to defend Mother Russia? (For all Putin's faults, he is a calculating adversary,
not a crazy one.)
The fact that none of these life-and-death foreign policy questions has been thoroughly or intelligently
explored during the Democratic presidential campaign is a failure of both the mainstream media moderators
and the two candidates, Sanders and Clinton, neither of whom seems to want a serious or meaningful
debate about these existential issues.
Perhaps Robert Kagan's endorsement of Hillary Clinton and what that underscores about the
likely foreign policy of a second Clinton presidency might finally force war or peace to the fore
of the campaign.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com).
Ambrose Bierce lost much public cachet when he predicted(?) McKinley would meet with a bullet,
as some believed his words were assumed as justification by the assassin.
From his "Devil's Dictionary":
WAR, n. A by-product of the arts of peace. The most menacing political condition is a period
of international amity. The student of history who has not been taught to expect the unexpected
may justly boast himself inaccessible to the light. "In time of peace prepare for war" has a deeper
meaning than is commonly discerned; it means, not merely that all things earthly have an end-that
change is the one immutable and eternal law-but that the soil of peace is thickly sown with the
seeds of war and singularly suited to their germination and growth. It was when Kubla Khan had
decreed his "stately pleasure dome"-when, that is to say, there were peace and fat feasting in
Xanadu- that he heard from afar Ancestral voices prophesying war.
One of the greatest of poets, Coleridge was one of the wisest of men, and it was not for nothing
that he read us this parable. Let us have a little less of "hands across the sea," and a little
more of that elemental distrust that is the security of nations. War loves to come like a thief
in the night; professions of eternal amity provide the night.
His entry just previous to this is for:
WALL STREET, n. A symbol of sin for every devil to rebuke. That Wall Street is a den of thieves
is a belief that serves every unsuccessful thief in place of a hope in Heaven...
I have a copy of his book "Tales of Soldiers and Civilians"; it's like reading a depressive version
of Edgar Allen Poe, all foreboding and involving some supernatural force. Perhaps that's all he could
find to explain the madness of the Civil War.
Wrapped in the flag neocon bottom feeders like Hillary (and quite possibly Trump, although
this article is from Guardian which is a fiercely pro-Clinton rag) might eventually destroy
this nice country.
Notable quotes:
"... the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
"... Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know anything about war ourselves. ..."
"... As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk ..."
"... The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of constant war. This is a stupid idea. ..."
"... It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician calling for more of those deaths. ..."
"... And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is? ..."
"... The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed" ..."
"... Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair. ..."
"... When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works out. ..."
"... we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans and flag waving. ..."
"... "Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict " How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there. ..."
"... So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich who never experienced war who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could send young men and women most of them middle- and working-class across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
"... It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives. ..."
"... So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course, then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading. ..."
"... John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won, the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check Soviet expansion. ..."
"... Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that "idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. ..."
"... Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually prefer to keep their views under wraps. ..."
"... Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer. ..."
"... I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary. The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell. ..."
As America marks Memorial Day, politicians should spare us the saber-rattling and reserve
some space for silence
... ... ...
The times are such that fantasy war-mongering is solidly mainstream. We've seen candidates call
for a new campaign of "shock and awe" (Kasich), for carpet-bombing and making the desert glow (Cruz),
for "bomb[ing] the shit out of them" (Trump), for waterboarding "and a hell of a lot worse" (Trump
again), and for pre-emptive strikes and massive troop deployments (Jeb). One candidate purchased
a handgun as "the last line of defense between Isis and my family" (Rubio), and the likely Democratic
nominee includes
"the nail-eaters McChrystal, Petraeus, Keane" among her preferred military advisers, and supports
"intensification and acceleration" of US military efforts in Iraq and Syria. Yes, America has many
enemies who heartily hate our guts and would do us every harm they're able to inflict, but the failures
of hard power over the past 15 years seem utterly lost on our political class. After the Paris attacks
last December, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard suggested that a force of 50,000 US troops deployed
to Syria, supported by air power, would crush Isis in short order, leading to the liberation of Fallujah,
Mosul, and other Isis strongholds.
"I don't think there's much in the way of unanticipated side-effects that are going to be bad there,"
opined Kristol funny guy! who back in 2002 said that removing Saddam Hussein "could start
a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy".
... ... ...
"A night of waking," as Bierce tersely described it years later. The sheer volume and accuracy
of ordnance made this a new kind of war, a machine for pulping acres of human flesh. Regardless of
who was winning or losing, shock-and-awe was the common experience of both sides; Confederate and
Union soldiers alike could hardly believe the things they were doing and having done to them, and
when Bierce turned to the writer's trade after the war, some fundamental rigor or just plain contrariness
wouldn't let him portray his war in conventionally heroic terms. In his hands, sentimentality and
melodrama became foils for twisted jokes. Glory was ambiguous at best, a stale notion that barely
hinted at the suicidal nature of valor in this kind of war. A wicked gift for honesty served up the
eternal clash between duty and the survival instinct, as when, early in the war, Bierce and his fellow
rookies come across a group of Union dead:
How repulsive they looked with their blood-smears, their blank, staring eyes, their teeth uncovered
by contraction of the lips! The frost had begun already to whiten their deranged clothing. We
were as patriotic as ever, but we did not wish to be that way.
... ... ...
Black humor sits alongside mordantly cool accounts of battles, wounds, horrors, absurd and tragic
turns of luck. There are lots of ghosts in Bierce's work, a menagerie of spirits and bugaboos as
well as hauntings of the more prosaic sort, people detached in one way or another from themselves
amnesiacs, hallucinators, somnambulists, time trippers. People missing some part of their souls.
Often Bierce writes of the fatal, or nearly so, shock, the twist that flips conventional wisdom on
its back and shows reality to be much darker and crueler than we want to believe. It's hard not to
read the war into much of Bierce's writing, even when the subject is ostensibly otherwise. He was
the first American writer of note to experience modern warfare, war as mass-produced death, and the
first to try for words that would be true to the experience. He charted this new terrain, and it's
in Bierce that we find the original experience that all subsequent American war writers would grapple
with. Hemingway and Dos Passos in the first world war; Mailer, Heller, Jones and Vonnegut in the
second world war; O'Brien, Herr and Marlantes in Vietnam: they're all heritors of Bierce.
It's not decorative, what these writers were going for. They weren't trying to write fancy, or
entertain, or preach a sermon; they weren't writing to serve a political cause, at least not in any
immediate sense. One suspects that on some level they didn't have a choice, as if they realized they
would never know any peace in themselves unless they found a way of writing that, if it couldn't
make sense of their war, at least respected it. Words that represented the experience for what it
was, without illusion or fantasy. Words that would resist the eternal American genius for cheapening
and dumbing down.
.... ... ...
...unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people
old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich who never experienced war who in their
youth ran as fast from it as they could send young men and women most of them middle- and working-class
across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the
grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless
War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic
experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing.
Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know
anything about war ourselves. We know the fantasy version, the movie version, but only that
1% of the nation and their families who have fought the wars truly know the hardship involved.
For the rest of us, no sacrifice has been called for: none. No draft. No war tax (but huge deficits),
and here it bears noting that the top tax rate during the second world war was 90%. No rationing,
the very mention of which is good for a laugh. Rationing? That was never part of the discussion.
But those years when US soldiers were piling sandbags into their thin-skinned Humvees and welding
scrap metal on to the sides also happened to coincide with the heyday of the Hummer here at home.
Where I live in Dallas, you couldn't drive a couple of blocks without passing one of those beasts,
8,600 hulking pounds of chrome and steel. Or for a really good laugh, how about this: gas rationing.
If it's really about the oil, we could support the troops by driving less, walking more. Or suppose
it's not about the oil at all, but about our freedoms, our values, our very way of life that it's
truly "a clash of civilizations", in the words of Senator Rubio. If that's the case, if this is what
we truly believe, then our politicians should call for, and we should accept no less than, full-scale
mobilization: a draft, confiscatory tax rates, rationing.
Some 3.5 million Americans fought in the civil war, out of a population of 31 million. For years
the number killed in action was estimated at 620,000, though recent scholarship suggests a significantly
higher figure, from a low of 650,000 to a high of 850,000. In any case, it's clear that the vast
majority of American families had, as we say these days, skin in the game. The war was real; having
loved ones at risk made it real. Many saw battles being fought in their literal backyards. Lincoln
himself watched the fighting from the DC ramparts, saw men shot and killed. The lived reality of
the thing was so brutally direct that it would be more than 50 years before the US embarked on another
major war. To be sure, there was the brief Spanish-American war in 1898, and a three-year native
insurgency in the Philippines, and various forays around the Caribbean and Central America, but the
trauma of the civil war cut so deep and raw that the generation that fought it was largely cured
of war. Our own generation's appetite seems steadily robust even as we approach the 15th anniversary
of the AUMF, which, given the circumstances, makes sense. As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable
homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk
Bierce survived his own war, barely. Two weeks after writing to a friend "my turn will come",
and one day before his 22nd birthday, he was shot in the head near Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia. The
sniper's ball broke his skull "like a walnut", penetrating the left temple, fracturing the temporal
lobe and doglegging down and around behind his left ear, where it stayed. Head shots in that era
were almost always fatal, but Bierce survived not only the initial wound, but an awful two-day train
ride on an open flatcar to an army hospital in Chattanooga.
He recovered, more or less. Not the easiest personality to begin with, Bierce showed no appreciable
mellowing from his war experience. His life is an ugly litany of feuds, ruptures, lawsuits, friends
betrayed or abandoned, epic temper tantrums and equally epic funks. He was a lousy husband cold,
critical, philandering and essentially abandoned his wife after 17 years of marriage. His older
son shot himself dead at age 16, and the younger drank himself to death in his 20s; for his own part,
Bierce maintained a lifelong obsession with suicide. In October 1913, after a distinguished, contentious
50-year career that had made him one of the most famous and hated men in America, Bierce left Washington
DC and headed for Mexico, intending to join, or report on it was never quite clear Pancho Villa's
revolutionary army. En route, dressing every day entirely in black, he paid final visits to the battlefields
of his youth, hiking for miles in the Indian summer heat around Orchard Knob, Missionary Ridge, Hell's
Half-Acre. For one whole day at Shiloh he sat by himself in the blazing sun. In November he crossed
from Laredo into Mexico, and was never heard from again, an exit dramatic enough to inspire a bestselling
novel by Carlos Fuentes, The Old Gringo, and a movie adaptation of the same name starring Gregory
Peck.
Late in life, Bierce described his military service in these terms:
It was once my fortune to command a company of soldiers real soldiers. Not professional life-long
fighters, the product of European militarism just plain, ordinary American volunteer soldiers,
who loved their country and fought for it with never a thought of grabbing it for themselves;
that is a trick which the survivors were taught later by gentlemen desiring their votes.
About those gentlemen and women desiring votes: since when did it become not just acceptable
but required for politicians to hold forth on Memorial Day? Who gave them permission to speak for
the violently dead? Come Monday we'll be up to our ears in some of the emptiest, most self-serving
dreck ever to ripple the atmosphere, the standard war-fantasy talk of American politics along with
televangelist-style purlings about heroes, freedoms, the supreme sacrifice. Trump will tell us how
much he loves the veterans, and how much they love him back. Down-ticket pols will re-terrorize and
titillate voters with tough talk about Isis. Hemingway, for one, had no use for this kind of guff,
as shown in a famous passage from A Farewell to Arms:
There were many words that you could not stand to hear and finally only the names of the places
had dignity. Certain numbers were the same way and certain dates and these with the names of the
places were all you could say and have them mean anything. Abstract words such as glory, honor,
courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the
names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates.
The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the
US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America
wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing
to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes
this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of
constant war. This is a stupid idea.
Even if Saddam had WMDs, he still had nothing to do with 9/11. The politicians are very good
at finding new scapegoats and switching the blame. A bunch of Saudis attacked the US on 9/11 so
invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden moves to Pakistan so pretend you don't know where he is.
Some European terrorists kill other Europeans so Hillary wants to invade Syria. The assumption
seems to be that all Muslims are the same, it does not matter where you kill them.
Fantastic writing...shame Murika won't listen to any of it.
charlieblue
Reading the comments and conversations below, I found myself sickened and saddened by how
many of my fellow Americans can read a considered and well written article like this and
imagine it is a partisan screed.
It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in
every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our
Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people
who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage
and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician
calling for more of those deaths.
"Endless war," but it's not only attacks against other nations, it's a war against civil
liberties thus leading to a state in which, whistle blowers, folks who poke holes in the
government's 911 theory or complain about military operations in the China Sea may be
considered unpatriotic, maybe worse.
Dubikau
A friend recently asked, "What's the big deal about wars? I'v seen them on TV lots of times. They have nothing to do with me." Alas, a generation or two after a devastating conflict, it seems people forget. The lessons of history are unknown or irrelevant to the ignorant, the horror beyond imagination. That the clown, Trump, has made it this far is a living horror movie. As Emerson said about someone:
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
He's a liar and a joke. Neither friends nor enemies can take him seriously and he is unpredictable.
Bellanova Nova
Excellent article.
We must start talking seriously about Trump's pathology guarantees conflict and chaos, and should he get elected, an escalation of an endless war. The ramifications of his incurable and uncontrollable character defect in a political leader are dire and people should be educated about them before it's too late: https://medium.com/@Elamika/the-unbearable-lightness-of-being-a-narcissist-251ec901dae7#.xywh6cceu
Philip Lundt
As a veteran I have to ask you Ben: who gave you "permission to speak for the violently dead?"
A lot of people love Donald Trump. It's not because they are racists warmongers, ignorant, misinformed or stupid. Veterans overwhelmingly support Donald trump. Go ahead call us racists and warmongers too.
And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is?
villas1
Bravo. War is a racket.
olman132 -> villas1
As practiced in the US, certainly. The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat.
Jim Given
When your'e putting your life at risk in a war zone wondering if you're going to make it back home, there's damned little discussion about politics. Whatever your reasons might have been for signing on the dotted line, all that matters then is the sailor, soldier, marine or airman standing beside you. It's discouraging, although painfully predictable, to read so few comments about veterans and so many comments about divisive politics.
Mshand
Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed"
USApatriot12
Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair.
talenttruth
For over 30 years, Americans have been carefully "programmed" 24/7, by deliberate Fear / Fear /
Fear propaganda, so we would believe that the entire world is full of evil, maniacal enemies out to
"get us."
Of course there always ARE insane haters out there, who are either jealous of America's wealth, or
who (more sophisticated than that) resent America's attempt to colonize-by-marketing, the entire
world for its unchecked capitalism. Two sides of the same American "coin." Those who are
conscripting jobless, hopeless young men overseas to be part of an equally mad "fundamentalist" army
against America ~ benefit hugely FROM our militarism, which "proves their point," from their warped
perspective.
Thus do the (tiny minority) of crazy America-haters out there (who we help create WITH our
militarism), serve as ongoing Perfectly Plausible Proof for Paranoia ~ the fuel for 24/7
fear/fear/fear propaganda. And who benefits from that propaganda? Oh wait, let us all think on that.
For five seconds.
In 1959, Republican war hero and President Dwight David Eisenhower warned us against combining the
incentives of capitalism with the un-audited profitability of wars: the "military industrial
complex." But in we Americans' orgy of personal materialism since the 1960's, we all forgot his
warning and have let that "complex" take over the nation, the world, all our pocketbooks (53% or
more of our treasury now goes to "defense" ~ what a lying word THAT is).
Answer? It it the 1-percent, crazily Wealth Hoarder super-rich who (a) profit insanely from Eternal
War and who now own (b) America's so-called "free press" (ha ha), the latter of which now slants all
news towards Threat, Fear, and War, again, 24/7. And now that "their" Nazi Supreme Court has ruled
that "money" = free speech, that same of sociopathic criminal class ALSO is coming to own politics.
Welcome to fully blooming Corporate Fascism, folks.
bullypulpit
In his book "1984" George Orwell wrote, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is
strength." Have we fallen so far that we are living that nightmare without question? When we hear
the voices of politicians, with those on the political right being the most egregious offenders,
clamoring for war, we must not forget the cost. Not just in terms of treasure, but especially of the
blood spilled by our men and women in uniform. Ask, "Are the causes they are being asked to
fight...and die...for, worthy of the sacrifice?"
Jim Given -> bullypulpit
I'm afraid that yes, we actually have fallen that far. The Patriot Act is the quintessential
example. Who could possibly oppose something called The Patriot Act?
Jim Given -> bullypulpit
The War on Terror, another fine example. What, you oppose fighting terrorists? The language
stifles (reasoned) dissent. It's brilliant, really.
Tom Farkas
Every year I get an uncomfortable sensation around Memorial Day. I know why now thanks to
this article. I didn't serve in the armed forces. Not for want. I was a post Vietnam teenager.
The armed forces were a joke during the Carter years and the US was in the middle of detante
with the USSR. Nothing to fight about and the word terrorist was still a few years away from
being reinvented. My Dad was a decorated veteran of the police action in Korea. He lost his
best friend there. He rarely talked about it. He and I sat on the couch watching the fall of
Saigon on TV. He silently cried. It was all for not. All those lives, all that misery, all for
nothing but power and glory. He knew it and I've known it since but just couldn't put a finger
on it. Thanks for this article.
talenttruth -> Tom Farkas
Tom, what a beautiful post. My husband and I (recently married after we were finally
"allowed" to, just like "real people"), are both Vietnam veterans (we had to "hide" in order
to serve). And I had majored in college in "U.S. Constitutional History," then worked worked
(ironically!) in the advertising "industry" (the Lie Factory) for enough years to see how
America, business and our society actually works, INSTEAD of "constitutionally."
My self-preoccupied generation sleepwalked from the 1960's until now, foolishly allowing the
super-rich to gradually make nearly every giant corporation dependent on military contracts.
Example? The European Union has openly subsidized its aircraft manufacturer, Airbus. But here,
in the USA ~ that would be "socialism," and so Boeing was forced instead (in order to compete)
to rely on military contracts ("military welfare.") They're both "government subsidization,"
but ours is crooked.
So what do we get when all corporations "must have" ongoing Business, in order to keep their
insatiable profits rolling in? Eternal War. And its "unfortunate side effects" - maimed
veterans, dead soldiers, sailors and airmen, and the revolting hypocrisy of "Memorial Day."
On that day, we pay "respect" to those who died serving the Military Marketing Department for
America's totally out of control, unchecked capitalism, which only serves the overlords at the
top.
Sorry to sound so grim, but I did not serve my country, to have it thus stolen.
Barclay Reynolds
When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a
combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run
by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every
penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know
true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected
officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works
out.
Jim Given -> Barclay Reynolds
Failure to care for our veterans is a national disgrace. Thanks for your service brother.
SusanPrice58 -> Barclay Reynolds
I agree. While I'm sure that most of these charities try to do well, it always makes me
angry to think about why the need for charities to care for veterans exists. If we are
determined to fight these wars - then every citizen should have to have deep involvement of
some sort. Raise taxes, ration oil, watch footage of battles, restore the draft - whatever.
Instead, we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans
and flag waving.
Tom Wessel
"Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict "
How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did
you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there.
gwpriester
The obscene amount of money the US pays just on the interest on the trillions "borrowed" for the Afghanistan and Iraq adventures would fix most that is wrong with the world. Bush & Cheney discovered if you don't raise taxes, require financial sacrifices, and do not have a draft, that you can wage bogus wars of choice for over a decade without so much as a peep of protest from the public. It is sickening how much good that money could do instead of all the death and destruction it bought.
AllenPitt
"So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich who never experienced war who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could send young men and women most of them middle- and working-class across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing."
EXACTLY!
OZGODRK
It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and
confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly
advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary
Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame
Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All
chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all
white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives.
So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course,
then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading.
MOZGODRK -> arrggh
But you are missing the entire point. Trump is NOT advocating the conflict; he is
advocating that we TALK to our enemies, so his lack of combat experience is a moot point.
On the other hand, the Clintons, the Alzhe...er, Albright, and the Samantha Power-Tripp are
all totally kosher with sending millions to die, knowing that they themselves will not
experience a nanosecond of hot cognitive experience.
caravanserai
John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great
book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has
developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western
Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe
Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany
dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire
as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won,
the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check
Soviet expansion.
Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are
taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that
"idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the
tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and
according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of
a new rival. Following the difficult wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. is less
certain of its global role. Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is
still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually
prefer to keep their views under wraps. Trump seems to be proposing something completely
different.
Rescue caravanserai
Trump is not proposing anything different. His foreign policy is the same as the establishment. He is not anti-war, nor more hawkish than Obama or Clinton.
Trumps FP is unilateral i.e. The US will go it alone without the UN or anyone else, attack any country he feels is threatning, without paying attention to intl. law, or "political correctness" as he calls it, i.e. the US will kill and torture as many ppl as it feels like to feel safe, and pay no attention to the Geneva Conventions. Other statements about his intended FP, that the msm calls shocking, has already been done, i.e. bomb the crap out of people, kill families of terrorists, waterboarding and much worse. These have been common policies since 9/11 & before. Another policy is to steal Iraq's oil. This has been de facto US FP in the Middle East since Eisenhower. The difference is that Trump says it outright. He makes subtext into the text.
Falanx
I agree with the overall point of this article... but focusing on the GOP and Trump, detracts from its otherwise valid points. What about Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, Obama and Hillary? Especially Hillary ("We came, We saw, He died") who evidently considers herself a latter day Caesar. The plain fact is that the US was conceived as a warmongering nation. Everyone else in the world understands this.
DanInTheDesert
Wow. What a fantastic article . This is what we need in the era of twitter journalism -- a long think piece. Thank you.[*]
Having said that I have disagree with the conclusion -- we have just a little over a week to avoid a forced choice between two hawks. The chances are slim but not impossible -- be active this weekend. Phonebank for Sanders. Convince a Californian to show up and vote.
PrinceVlad
Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the
reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer.
Kenarmy -> PrinceVlad
"Donald Trump would deploy up to 30,000 American soldiers in the Middle East to defeat the
Islamic State, he said at Thursday night's debate."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608#ixzz49yJWQras
I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over
every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary.
The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell.
[*] and if anyone is reading who deals with such things -- y'all need to accept paypal or bitcoin so I can subscribe. Who uses their credit card online anymore?
Muammar al-Qaddafi was an easy target. Oil was the goal. Everything else is describable attempt
to white wash the crime.
Notable quotes:
"... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
"... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
"... Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight ..."
"... As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun ..."
"... on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
"... Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own. ..."
"... For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale". ..."
"... But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC. ..."
"... This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on." ..."
"... the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability. ..."
"... What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them. ..."
"... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating
every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system
and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as
they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!
At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead
of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just
repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has
been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections!
xD
Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that
this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts
with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt
political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system
but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control
of the society).
"As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune
have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar
al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand
up to even casual scrutiny.
Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct
deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats
to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not
at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive
qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as
Obama put it) was slight. "
"If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public
scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence
we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting
plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that
these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims
on this score than it was for previous administrations.
As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and
the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody)
and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding,
the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's
barely begun."
"David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from
the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a
Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without
Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence including from other rebel-held towns
Gaddafi re-captured to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out
such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was
perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than
ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months as Nato leaders
vetoed ceasefires and negotiations range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional
Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing
and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other
most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya it
has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.
For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost
in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically
sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state
whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary
is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists
American companies are needed on a "big scale".
But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective
imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence
assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military
leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj kidnapped by MI6 to
be tortured in Libya in 2004 who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from
the NTC.
"Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted
as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15
February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support
and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that
the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi
was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies,
who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no
less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism muted though this was in his later
years not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.
This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring,
when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides
in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about
government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted,
while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these
stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."
And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the
Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially
operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people?
Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western
press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report
killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.
So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with
smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.
Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You
have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.
the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that
a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and
Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in
like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.
"was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"
You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the
Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban
and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported
by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance
was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix
if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother
to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides.
You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum
was an animal worse than the Taliban.
What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable.
Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected.
The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in
essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia,
and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.
So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the
luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum,
perhaps things would have been different.
We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people.
The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of
affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government
office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides,
he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was
on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team
about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the
participation in the elections).
"And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that
bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."
Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides.
I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there
were rules and they could survive the rules.
But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:
"Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the
concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central
government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and
not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%)
of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such
as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation
had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."
""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban
in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the
government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""
77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.
Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The
Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They
saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence
the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government
offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood
an not Karzai)
My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused.
Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as
the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.
Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were
stupid to intervene.
"... Speaking of the US putting more troops in Europe near the Russian border, Paul notes that he doesn't think "they have strong evidence that the Russians are about to roll in tanks." Instead, a motivation for the military build-up, Paul says, is "stirring up troubles to justify more military expenditures." ..."
Speaking last week with host Scott Horton on the Scott Horton Show, three-time presidential candidate
and former Republican member of the US House of Representatives Ron Paul discussed the military-industrial
complex's role in US militarism across the world, including in Latin America and Europe.
After Horton introduced Paul as "the greatest American hero," Paul and Horton entered a fascinating
discussion of US foreign policy. Their wide-ranging discussion concerns matters including US intervention
in Iraq and Ukraine, a potential "Brexit" - exit of Great Britain from the European Union (EU), and
Paul's preference for free trade over international trade deals that Paul says put in place "managed
trade to serve the interests of some special interests."
Addressing the influence of the military-industrial complex, Paul comments in the interview on examples
in Europe and Latin America.
Speaking of the US putting more troops in Europe near the Russian border, Paul notes that he doesn't
think "they have strong evidence that the Russians are about to roll in tanks." Instead, a motivation
for the military build-up, Paul says, is "stirring up troubles to justify more military expenditures."
Paul also comments on the military-industrial complex when he discusses how a dispute over which
company would profit from its helicopters being used in the US government's "Plan Columbia" was resolved
by sending both companies' helicopters to Latin America for use in the drug war effort.
Listen through the end of the interview and you will hear Horton's strong praise for the Ron Paul
Institute for Peace and Prosperity (RPI). Paul founded RPI in 2013 after retiring from the House
of Representatives. Says Horton:
Check out the Ron Paul Institute at ronpaulinstitute.org.
They put out great antiwar propaganda all day long seven days a week - the great Dan McAdams,
Dr. Paul, Adam Dick and others there at the Ron Paul Institute, ronpaulinstitute.org.
Let's face it: in times of war, the Constitution tends to take a beating. With the safety or survival
of the nation said to be at risk, the basic law of the land-otherwise considered sacrosanct-becomes
nonbinding, subject to being waived at the whim of government authorities who are impatient, scared,
panicky, or just plain pissed off.
The examples are legion. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln
arbitrarily suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ignored court orders that took issue with his
authority to do so. After U.S. entry into World War I, the administration of Woodrow Wilson mounted
a comprehensive effort to crush dissent, shutting down anti-war publications in complete disregard
of the First Amendment. Amid the hysteria triggered by Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt issued an
executive order consigning to concentration camps more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans, many of them
native-born citizens. Asked in 1944 to review this gross violation of due process, the Supreme Court
endorsed the government's action by a 6-3 vote.
More often than not, the passing of the emergency induces second thoughts and even remorse. The
further into the past a particular war recedes, the more dubious the wartime arguments for violating
the Constitution appear. Americans thereby take comfort in the "lessons learned" that will presumably
prohibit any future recurrence of such folly.
Even so, the onset of the next war finds the Constitution once more being ill-treated. We don't
repeat past transgressions, of course. Instead, we devise new ones. So it has been during the ongoing
post-9/11 period of protracted war.
During the presidency of George W. Bush, the United States embraced torture as an instrument of
policy in clear violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Bush's
successor, Barack Obama, ordered the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen, a death by drone
that was visibly in disregard of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Both administrations-Bush's
with gusto, Obama's with evident regret-imprisoned individuals for years on end without charge and
without anything remotely approximating the "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" guaranteed
by the Sixth Amendment. Should the present state of hostilities ever end, we can no doubt expect
Guantαnamo to become yet another source of "lessons learned" for future generations of rueful Americans.
♦♦♦
Yet one particular check-and-balance constitutional proviso now appears exempt from this recurring
phenomenon of disregard followed by professions of dismay, embarrassment, and "never again-ism" once
the military emergency passes. I mean, of course, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which
assigns to Congress the authority "to declare war" and still stands as testimony to the genius of
those who drafted it. There can be no question that the responsibility for deciding when and whether
the United States should fight resides with the legislative branch, not the executive, and that this
was manifestly the intent of the Framers.
On parchment at least, the division of labor appears straightforward. The president's designation
as commander-in-chief of the armed forces in no way implies a blanket authorization to employ those
forces however he sees fit or anything faintly like it. Quite the contrary: legitimizing presidential
command requires explicit congressional sanction.
Actual practice has evolved into something altogether different. The portion of Article I, Section
8, cited above has become a dead letter, about as operative as blue laws still on the books in some
American cities and towns that purport to regulate Sabbath day activities. Superseding the written
text is an unwritten counterpart that goes something like this:
with legislators largely consigned
to the status of observers, presidents pretty much wage war whenever, wherever, and however they
see fit.
Whether the result qualifies as usurpation or forfeiture is one of those chicken-and-egg
questions that's interesting but practically speaking beside the point.
This is by no means a recent development. It has a history. In the summer of 1950, when President
Harry Truman decided that a U.N. Security Council resolution provided sufficient warrant for him
to order U.S. forces to fight in Korea, congressional war powers took a hit from which they would
never recover.
Congress soon thereafter bought into the notion, fashionable during the Cold War, that formal
declarations of hostilities had become passι. Waging the "long twilight struggle" ostensibly required
deference to the commander-in-chief on all matters related to national security. To sustain the pretense
that it still retained some relevance, Congress took to issuing what were essentially permission
slips, granting presidents maximum freedom of action to do whatever they might decide needed to be
done in response to the latest perceived crisis.
The Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 offers a notable example. With near unanimity, legislators
urged President Lyndon Johnson "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against
the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression" across the length and breadth
of Southeast Asia. Through the magic of presidential interpretation, a mandate to prevent aggression
provided legal cover for an astonishingly brutal and aggressive war in Vietnam, as well as Cambodia
and Laos. Under the guise of repelling attacks on U.S. forces, Johnson and his successor, Richard
Nixon, thrust millions of American troops into a war they could not win, even if more than 58,000
died trying.
To leap almost four decades ahead, think of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
that was passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 as the grandchild of the Tonkin Gulf
Resolution. This document required (directed, called upon, requested, invited, urged) President George
W. Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons
he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international
terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons." In plain language:
here's a blank check; feel free to fill it in any way you like.
♦♦♦
As a practical matter, one specific individual-Osama bin Laden-had hatched the 9/11 plot. A single
organization-al-Qaeda-had conspired to pull it off. And just one nation-backward, Taliban-controlled
Afghanistan-had provided assistance, offering sanctuary to bin Laden and his henchmen. Yet nearly
15 years later, the AUMF remains operative and has become the basis for military actions against
innumerable individuals, organizations, and nations with no involvement whatsoever in the murderous
events of September 11, 2001.
Consider the following less than comprehensive list of four developments, all of which occurred
just within the last month and a half:
In Yemen, a U.S. airstrike killed at least 50 individuals, said to be members of an Islamist
organization that did not exist on 9/11.
In Somalia, another U.S. airstrike killed a reported 150 militants, reputedly members of al-Shabab,
a very nasty outfit, even if one with no real agenda beyond Somalia itself.
In Syria, pursuant to the campaign of assassination that is the latest spin-off of the Iraq
War, U.S. special operations forces bumped off the reputed "finance minister" of the Islamic State,
another terror group that didn't even exist in September 2001.
In Libya, according to press reports, the Pentagon is again gearing up for "decisive military
action"-that is, a new round of air strikes and special operations attacks to quell the disorder
resulting from the U.S.-orchestrated air campaign that in 2011 destabilized that country. An airstrike
conducted in late February gave a hint of what is to come: it killed approximately 50 Islamic
State militants (and possibly two Serbian diplomatic captives).
Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Libya share at least this in common: none of them, nor any of the groups
targeted, had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
Imagine if, within a matter of weeks, China were to launch raids into Vietnam, Thailand, and Taiwan,
with punitive action against the Philippines in the offing. Or if Russia, having given a swift kick
to Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, leaked its plans to teach Poland a lesson for mismanaging its
internal affairs. Were Chinese President Xi Jinping or Russian President Vladimir Putin to order
such actions, the halls of Congress would ring with fierce denunciations. Members of both houses
would jostle for places in front of the TV cameras to condemn the perpetrators for recklessly violating
international law and undermining the prospects for world peace. Having no jurisdiction over the
actions of other sovereign states, senators and representatives would break down the doors to seize
the opportunity to get in their two cents worth. No one would be able to stop them. Who does Xi think
he is! How dare Putin!
Yet when an American president undertakes analogous actions over which the legislative branch
does
have jurisdiction, members of Congress either yawn or avert their eyes.
In this regard, Republicans are especially egregious offenders. On matters where President Obama
is clearly acting in accordance with the Constitution-for example, in nominating someone to fill
a vacancy on the Supreme Court-they spare no effort to thwart him, concocting bizarre arguments nowhere
found in the Constitution to justify their obstructionism. Yet when this same president cites the
2001 AUMF as the basis for initiating hostilities hither and yon, something that is on the face of
it not legal but ludicrous, they passively assent.
Indeed, when Obama in 2015 went so far as to ask Congress to pass a new AUMF addressing the specific
threat posed by the Islamic State-that is, essentially rubberstamping the war he had already launched
on his own in Syria and Iraq-the Republican leadership took no action. Looking forward to the day
when Obama departs office, Senator Mitch McConnell with his trademark hypocrisy worried aloud that
a new AUMF might constrain his successor. The next president will "have to clean up this mess, created
by all of this passivity over the last eight years," the majority leader remarked. In that regard,
"an authorization to use military force that ties the president's hands behind his back is not something
I would want to do." The proper role of Congress was to get out of the way and give this commander-in-chief
carte blanche
so that the next one would enjoy comparably unlimited prerogatives.
Collaborating with a president they roundly despise-implicitly concurring in Obama's questionable
claim that "existing statutes [already] provide me with the authority I need" to make war on ISIS-the
GOP-controlled Congress thereby transformed the post-9/11 AUMF into what has now become, in effect,
a writ of permanent and limitless armed conflict. In Iraq and Syria, for instance, what began as
a limited but open-ended campaign of air strikes authorized by President Obama in August 2014 has
expanded to include an ever-larger contingent of U.S. trainers and advisers for the Iraqi military,
special operations forces conducting raids in both Iraq and Syria, the first new all-U.S. forward
fire base in Iraq, and at least 5,000 U.S. military personnel now on the ground, a number that continues
to grow incrementally.
Remember Barack Obama campaigning back in 2008 and solemnly pledging to end the Iraq War? What
he neglected to mention at the time was that he was retaining the prerogative to plunge the country
into another Iraq War on his own ticket. So has he now done, with members of Congress passively assenting
and the country essentially a prisoner of war.
By now, through its inaction, the legislative branch has, in fact, surrendered the final remnant
of authority it retained on matters relating to whether, when, against whom, and for what purpose
the United States should go to war. Nothing now remains but to pay the bills, which Congress routinely
does, citing a solemn obligation to "support the troops." In this way does the performance of lesser
duties provide an excuse for shirking far greater ones.
In military circles, there is a term to describe this type of behavior. It's called cowardice.
"... Actually, he upgraded his army after Georgia launched a surprise blitzkrieg operation on S. Ossetia, killing UN-mandated Russian peacekeepers and a few hundred sleeping Ossets, with or without a wink and a nod from the US. Verdict's still out on that last one. You'll have to wait for Karl Rove's posthumous memoirs for that insight. ..."
"... Another silly "what if" article. A conflict between Nato and Russia will very quickly go nuclear. Nobody wins. Taking the three tiny Baltic countries into Nato was an incredibly stupid move. The purpose was purely to provoke Russia. They can't be defended without going nuclear. They will be lost forever. Nato gains nothing except the claim of being the victim. ..."
"... The NATO-bloc spends about a trillion dollars each year on the military -- as much as is spent by all other countries in the world combined, and an order of magnitude more than what Russia spends. ..."
"... If NATO is defending "Freedom", as we're told, then why does it require such a titanic amount of force and money? If U.S.-style "Freedom" is such a good thing, if this Exceptional "Freedom" is something that every sane person wants, then why does it take so much force to impose this "Freedom" on people ? ..."
"... NATO is selling death and destruction, repackaged as "Freedom and Democracy". Ask what is inside the pretty package! -- then you will understand why this "Freedom" is such a hard sell. ..."
"... The Baltic leaders are just milking NATO, with their constant 'threat alerts'. And NATO milks them right back. It's a symbiotic milk maid festival. ..."
Just typical propaganda to justify endless billions for a nonexistent threat. ,you have to be
a brainwashed neocon idiot or have stock in defense corporations or likely both to believe Russia
has any interest in invading anyone. How would we feel if Russia moved missiles and troops to
our borders?
You should be use to it by now since all of your former allies have either joined NATO or want
to join NATO as protection against Russia.
You see - we actually don't have to do anything to convince nations to work with us - we just
let Russia act the way it normally acts and the rest falls into place.
I'm fond of saying that Putin is our best man in Russia. We couldn't ask for a better ally
in helping us dismantle Russia.
Actually, he upgraded his army after Georgia launched a surprise blitzkrieg operation on S. Ossetia,
killing UN-mandated Russian peacekeepers and a few hundred sleeping Ossets, with or without a
wink and a nod from the US. Verdict's still out on that last one. You'll have to wait for Karl
Rove's posthumous memoirs for that insight.
You are right and Georgia was armed and trained by US and instigated by US to attack Russia and
what happened it took Russia 5 days to defeat the well armed US backed Georgians and this is an
indicator how the US will fare against a war with Russia - FULL RETREAT
Brian you really don't know what you are talking about. I doubt you ever have left your neighborhood
let alone the state. You talk down about Russia and how great the American military is. But then
again like all talk it is just talk. In a real war Russia has many more nukes then we do. They
kept their nuclear program up while ours has fallen. Should a real war happen all you will see
Brian is flashes of of light everywhere and that will be the end. GET IT WAKE UP !!!
Without firing a shot? Apparently, you missed the right sector snipers in the Hotel Ukraina, the
Azov battalion civilian massacres in Mariupol and the Odessa holocaust, eh?
But we know, you loved every bullet of it. Psychopaths are as psychopaths do.
And BTW, speak for yourself. This 'we' thing is delusional. If 'we' met, you'd understand that
quick enough.
The Russians brought it upon themselves with their history of bullying...
Your neighbors will continue to hate you, and we don't need to do anything about it.
I'll be happy to send a donation to Ukraine so they can buy more defensive weapons - the more
Russians that invade their land, the more body bags they can send back to Russia.
The Ukrainians brought it upon themselves, sir. You obviously share in that endearing Ukrainian
trait to blame everyone but yourself for the consequences of your actions. Next time, try to keep
your banderite fascist ideologues at bay and maybe you'll learn something about those 'European
values' that Poroshenko seems to like to lecture the Europeans about, if that ain't a hoot in
itself.
What just happened in Syria?
What about the untraceable subs Russia has that can knock out our aircraft carries easily? PS:
Iran has one and we lost track of it shortly after they purchased it from Russia.
What about the large number of nuclear weapon Russia has and has used this threat in an offensives
manor lately?
Are you the type of person who leaves his front door unlocked when you go to work?
Just type up your SS#, Credit Cards, and Name for us please...along with you address since you
do not believe in preventive measures to safeguard yourself.
The untraceable diesel electric are very short range by ocean going standard AND become more visible
it they need to approach the target (The hope to submerge, sit and have a vessel pass very close).
The Baltics and Poland should take an example from Finland. Finland has managed to avoid conflict
with Russia, without any help from the U.S. or NATO. Threats of imminent Russian invasion are
fairy tales.
Another silly "what if" article. A conflict between Nato and Russia will very quickly go nuclear.
Nobody wins. Taking the three tiny Baltic countries into Nato was an incredibly stupid move. The
purpose was purely to provoke Russia. They can't be defended without going nuclear. They will
be lost forever. Nato gains nothing except the claim of being the victim.
MY CONGRATULATIONS FOR YOU OPINION WHICH IS MY OPINION. I AM A PROFESSIONAL ARMY OFFFICER. YOUR
OPINION IS THE CORRECT AND THE REAL ONE. ALL THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHATEVER STRENGTH AND KIND
OF TROOPS OR WEAPONS NATO MIGTH HAVE WHEREVER... WITHIN EUROPE IS SIMPLY SILLY...
I THINK ANY ARMY OFFICER KNOWS WHAT YOU JUST TOLD... SO EITHER ALL THIS SHIT AROUND WHOM, WHAT
AND WHERE TO DEPLOY MILITARY POWER TO STOP THE RUSSIANS IS JUST TO HAVE THE STUPID EUROPEANS SPENDING
MORE MONEY BUYING USA WEAPONS OR IF NATO BELIEVES WHAT THEY ARE DOING... THEN THE GENERALS IN
CHARGE ARE JUST DONKEYS ... AND I APOLOGIZE TO DONKEYS... OF COURSE ANY VERY FIRST MILITARY ACTION
FROM RUSSIA EITHER TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM A NATO/ USA ATTACK OR TO CARRY OUT A PRE EMPTIVE ATTACK
WILL BE IMMEDIATELY NUCLEAR... MORE THAN THAT IT WILL BE GLOBAL.... NOT ONLY AGAINST EUROPE...
THE MAIN TARGET WILL BE USA AND ITS MILITARY BASES AROUND THE WORLD... AND OF COURSE EUROPE...
SO CONVENCIONAL MILITARY MEANS IN SUCH A CONTEXT THEY SHALL BE BASICALLY TROOPS AND EQUIPMENT
ABLE TO OPERATE IN A NUCLEAR AND NBQ ENVIRONMENT.
Russia wouldn't have to go nuclear to defeat Europe, so if it does go nuclear, it will be the
US that pushes the button.
As the Russian army would be in Europe, the US would nuke Europe.
"Taking the three tiny Baltic countries into NATO was an incredibly stupid move."
I disagree. Americas' Principles have always stressed spreading Freedom & Liberty as far as
possible. Where "we" Americans went wrong was not electing leadership who understood this principle.
I can agree with the Far Left on one thing: Europeans need to bring their military strength
back up. It's obvious that my country (USA) is headed down a path of isolationism. A pity, really.
Has the Europeans learned to value each other as equals...... or will ancient rivalries tear them
apart?
The NATO-bloc spends about a trillion dollars each year on the military -- as much as is spent
by all other countries in the world combined, and an order of magnitude more than what Russia
spends.
If NATO is defending "Freedom", as we're told, then why does it require such a titanic
amount of force and money? If U.S.-style "Freedom" is such a good thing, if this Exceptional "Freedom"
is something that every sane person wants, then why does it take so much force to impose this
"Freedom" on people ?
If I invent something that people want -- a better mouse-trap, say -- do I have to bomb people
into buying my product? Do I have to use "police" armed with tanks and machine-guns to round people
up and force them into the store where my mouse-trap is sold?
Real freedom is something that sells itself. Freedom is something to live for, not something
to kill and be killed for. We develop freedom by exercising our rights, not by turning other countries
into rubble!
NATO is selling death and destruction, repackaged as "Freedom and Democracy". Ask what
is inside the pretty package! -- then you will understand why this "Freedom" is such a hard sell.
Freedom & Liberty via bombs in invasion! Democracy only when US puppet will win otherwise regime
change like in Syria and in the past many other countries
your reply is silly and stupid. Principles never won anything. You are one of those pedantic liberals
who think we (but, of course, not you) need to save everyone. Reality says most would rather give
up than fight themselves.
I agree with principles (They should not be underestimated!) however I think as Americans we are
going to have to be a bit more pragmatic going forward.
The politicians prefer the U.S. to Russia, perhaps. But I'm not sure that the same can be said
of the people.
A referendum on the future of the Soviet Union was held on 17 March 1991. The question put
to voters was: "Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom
of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?"
Russia SFSR:
Choice .......... ------Votes . -----%
For .............. 56,860,783 .. 73.00
Against .......... 21,030,753 .. 27.00
Invalid ........... 1,809,633 ...... -
Total ............ 79,701,169 . 100.00
Reg., Turnout ... 105,643,364 .. 75.44
A similar referendum was held 22 years later, by Gallup. In the
2013 Gallup poll , people in countries formed by the Soviet dissolution said, by a two-to-one
margin, that they were worse off than before the Soviet break-up .
But it doesn't matter, of course, what the people think. The "West" -- the U.S. Empire -- decided
that the Soviet Union was bad, and the rulers/bankers/gangsters of the "West" know what is
best for everyone everywhere . That's because the rulers/bankers of the U.S. Empire are Exceptional,
Enlightened and Inherently Superior. They were Born Without Sin, their intentions are Pure and
Holy, and they Know More Than God.
It was foolish. How did Finland survive as a neutral country? If anyone had any justification
for joining NATO after WWII, it was certainly Finland, yet it prospered undisturbed, even benefiting
from Russia trade.
The Baltic leaders are just milking NATO, with their constant 'threat alerts'. And NATO milks
them right back. It's a symbiotic milk maid festival.
"... When President George HW Bush invaded Iraq in 1991, the warhawks celebrated what they considered the end of that post-Vietnam period where Americans were hesitant about being the policeman of the world. President Bush said famously at the time, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all." ..."
"... Last month was another anniversary. March 20, 2003 was the beginning of the second US war on Iraq. It was the night of "shock and awe" as bombs rained down on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it was a war brought on by government lies and propaganda, amplified by a compliant media that repeated the lies without hesitation. ..."
Last week Defense Secretary Ashton Carter laid a wreath at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington
in commemoration of the "50th anniversary" of that war. The date is confusing, as the war started
earlier and ended far later than 1966. But the Vietnam War at 50 commemoration presents a good opportunity
to reflect on the war and whether we have learned anything from it.
Some 60,000 Americans were killed fighting in that war more than 8,000 miles away. More than a
million Vietnamese military and civilians also lost their lives. The US government did not accept
that it had pursued a bad policy in Vietnam until the bitter end. But in the end the war was lost
and we went home, leaving the destruction of the war behind. For the many who survived on both sides,
the war would continue to haunt them.
It was thought at the time that we had learned something from this lost war. The War Powers Resolution
was passed in 1973 to prevent future Vietnams by limiting the president's ability to take the country
to war without the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional declaration of war. But the law failed
in its purpose and was actually used by the war party in Washington to make it easier to go to war
without Congress.
Such legislative tricks are doomed to failure when the people still refuse to demand that elected
officials follow the Constitution.
When President George HW Bush invaded Iraq in 1991, the warhawks celebrated what they considered
the end of that post-Vietnam period where Americans were hesitant about being the policeman of the
world. President Bush said famously at the time, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once
and for all."
They may have beat the Vietnam Syndrome, but they learned nothing from Vietnam.
Colonel Harry Summers returned to Vietnam in 1974 and told his Vietnamese counterpart Colonel
Tsu, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield." The Vietnamese officer responded, "That may
be so, but it is also irrelevant."
He is absolutely correct: tactical victories mean nothing when pursuing a strategic mistake.
Last month was another anniversary. March 20, 2003 was the beginning of the second US war
on Iraq. It was the night of "shock and awe" as bombs rained down on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it was
a war brought on by government lies and propaganda, amplified by a compliant media that repeated
the lies without hesitation.
Like Vietnam, the 2003 Iraq war was a disaster. More than 5,000 Americans were killed in the war
and as many as a million or more Iraqis lost their lives. There is nothing to show for the war but
destruction, trillions of dollars down the drain, and the emergence of al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Sadly, unlike after the Vietnam fiasco there has been almost no backlash against the US empire.
In fact, President Obama has continued the same failed policy and Congress doesn't even attempt to
reign him in. On the very anniversary of that disastrous 2003 invasion, President Obama announced
that he was sending US Marines back into Iraq! And not a word from Congress.
We've seemingly learned nothing.
There have been too many war anniversaries! We want an end to all these pointless wars. It's time
we learn from these horrible mistakes.
I am "not isolationist, but I am 'America First,'"
Donald Trump told The New York times last weekend. "I like the expression."
Of NATO, where the U.S. underwrites three-fourths of the cost of defending Europe, Trump calls
this arrangement
"unfair, economically, to us," and adds, "We will not be ripped off
anymore."
Beltway media may be transfixed with Twitter wars over wives and alleged infidelities.
But the ideas Trump aired should ignite a national debate over U.S. overseas commitments - especially
NATO.
For the Donald's ideas are not lacking for authoritative support.
The first NATO supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said in February 1951 of the alliance:
"If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been
returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed."
As JFK biographer Richard Reeves relates, President Eisenhower, a decade later, admonished the
president-elect on NATO.
"Eisenhower told his successor it was time to start bringing the troops home from Europe. 'America
is carrying far more than her share of free world defense,' he said. It was time for other nations
of NATO to take on more of the costs of their own defense."
No Cold War president followed Ike's counsel.
But when the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the dissolution of the Warsaw
Pact, and the breakup of the Soviet Union into 15 nations, a new debate erupted.
The conservative coalition that had united in the Cold War fractured. Some of us argued that when
the Russian troops went home from Europe, the American troops should come home from Europe.
Time for a populous prosperous Europe to start defending itself.
Instead, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush began handing out NATO memberships, i.e., war guarantees,
to all ex-Warsaw Pact nations and even Baltic republics that had been part of the Soviet Union.
In a historically provocative act, the U.S. moved its "red line" for war with Russia from the
Elbe River in Germany to the Estonian-Russian border, a few miles from St. Petersburg.
We declared to the world that should Russia seek to restore its hegemony over any part of its
old empire in Europe, she would be at war with the United States.
No Cold War president ever considered issuing a war guarantee of this magnitude, putting our homeland
at risk of nuclear war, to defend Latvia and Estonia.
Recall. Ike did not intervene to save the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956. Lyndon Johnson did
not lift a hand to save the Czechs, when Warsaw Pact armies crushed "Prague Spring" in 1968. Reagan
refused to intervene when Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski, on Moscow's orders, smashed Solidarity in 1981.
These presidents put America first. All would have rejoiced in the liberation of Eastern Europe.
But none would have committed us to war with a nuclear-armed nation like Russia to guarantee it.
Yet, here was George W. Bush declaring that any Russian move against Latvia or Estonia meant war
with the United States. John McCain wanted to extend U.S. war guarantees to Georgia and Ukraine.
This was madness born of hubris. And among those who warned against moving NATO onto Russia's
front porch was America's greatest geostrategist, the author of containment, George Kennan:
"Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold
War era. Such a decision may be expected to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly
not to our liking."
Kennan was proven right. By refusing to treat Russia as we treated other nations that repudiated
Leninism, we created the Russia we feared, a rearming nation bristling with resentment.
The Russian people, having extended a hand in friendship and seen it slapped away, cheered the
ouster of the accommodating Boris Yeltsin and the arrival of an autocratic strong man who would make
Russia respected again. We ourselves prepared the path for Vladimir Putin.
While Trump is focusing on how America is bearing too much of the cost of defending Europe, it
is the risks we are taking that are paramount, risks no Cold War president ever dared to take.
Why should America fight Russia over who rules in the Baltic States or Romania and
Bulgaria? When did the sovereignty of these nations become interests so vital we would risk a military
clash with Moscow that could escalate into nuclear war? Why are we still committed to fight for scores
of nations on five continents?
Trump is challenging the mindset of a foreign policy elite whose thinking is frozen in a world
that disappeared around 1991.
He is suggesting a new foreign policy where the United States is committed to war only
when are attacked or U.S. vital interests are imperiled.
And when we agree to defend other
nations, they will bear a full share of the cost of their own defense. The era of the free rider
is over.
Trump's phrase, "America First!" has a nice ring to it.
Trumps statements are true, but don't go far enough.
Since the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, there is
no reason for NATO to exist, or especially for us to be
a part of it. We gain nothing except the promises to go
to nuclear war with Russia, even over a shitshow country
like turkey, who shot down a fucking Russia plane.
It would also be interesting to see what happens to
the welfare states of Western Europe if they were forced
to pay for all this shit, or the US left all together.
Surely Trump is not so stupid to believe that we are being "had"
by the Europeans in regards to the collective NATO defense budget?
Surely he understands NATO is merely a captive audience for arms sales
ex USA?
Surely he understands that by paying "more than our share" we
are utilizing it to push a fucked up agenda abroad with the complicity
of those who are "not paying their share"?
In a manner of speaking he's right. Other countries don't pay their
fair share of the expenses. However,
the size and scope of what
exists now is orders of magnitude TOO BIG. So everyone else shouldn't
pay more, the US should scale back and spend WAY less.
That is what will get someone killed. Scaling back at all and therefore
costing any private predatory military supplier / contractor money..
Something extraordinary has taken place in the last few weeks.
More and more old-time Republican stalwarts and leaders have
laid their voices bare, if not defending Donald Trump, then for certain
excoriating the three decade long NeoLib/NeoCon pact that is strangulating
American sovereignty and paving the way for a NWO. Paul Craig
Roberts, as always, was perhaps the first. But now David Stockman
(Reagan's Budget Director), Peggy Noonan (Reagan's speechwriter), Patrick
Buchanan (another Reaganite and erstwhile Republican curmudgeon), Robert
Bennett (Reagan's head of the Department of Education), and perhaps
many more that I am not aware of are coming out of the closet.
It is almost as though Trump's 'take-no-prisoners' ethos, and
getting away with it and media and political correctness be damned,
is actually creating enough breathing space for others to say what's
been on their mind but have been too frightened to speak out about.
Well spoken, known, and credible voices are pushing back.
This could be a snowball careening downhill turning into an avalanche.
If enough of these folks keep emerging from dark corners they could
well provide Trump with a political phalanx that diminish the probabliity
of something as outrageous as stealing the nomination or even assassination.
One thing is for certain. A civil war is taking place
already, and its in the Republican Party.
NATO? The USA and European nations cannot even protect
their borders from invasion. End NATO. It is only good for
genocide against small unarmed countries.
"... This type of 'terrorism' fits other well established models that are characterized as a 'strategy of tension', and these historically were planned and executed by assets of US-NATO military intelligence themselves, as part of the Gladio program. ..."
"... So we have to divide between military ISIS - that army of mercenaries, misled youth, drug addicts, ex-prisoners, and religious fanatics on the one hand, backed by Turkey and Gulf monarchies, from the 'ISIS' that is more like Al Qaeda - specially trained intelligence and security assets with knowledge of electronics, bomb making, counter-security/penetration, etc. - who are directly controlled by CIA/Mossad/MI6 and Saudi security and Pakistani ISI. ..."
"... The US-NATO intelligence program, through Gladio has long time assets in Europe, and the last year has been reminiscent of a time during the Cold War when this strategy of tension reached its peak in Europe during the 1970's. ..."
Words always fail to speak to the human tragedy component of yesterday's 'terrorist' attacks, and
my words cannot adequately address them either.
Moreover, it seems in poor judgment to specifically lament over one criminal tragedy, when such
criminal tragic events are so rampant around the world, and are often the product of US-NATO
operations globally.
The terrorist attacks in Belgium are a direct part of US-NATO's plans to perpetuate war and
instability, and destabilization anywhere that the US senses hesitation to fully support its
plans.
I have not yet seen evidence that the individuals who pulled off these attacks have any
connection to any of the named or known 'terrorist' networks. What I have read so far as a
Kurdish media sources claiming that ISIS had claimed responsibility.
For those linking these attacks to the known and documented ISIS/FSA members/soldiers that have
now decided to seek 'refuge' in Europe from the way which they created, I would say that while it
is possible that any such individuals who came as refugees in the recent wave could have been
used in these attacks, such assets already existed and lived in Europe for an indeterminably long
time.
There is a link, however, between the 'refugee' crisis and these terrorist attacks, - and that is
that these are both components of the general destabilization of the middle-east and now, Europe.
From a sociological and strategic point of view, it is difficult to imagine that such
'reverberations' were not foreseen, and therefore expected, and as such perhaps even viewed as
desirable by the powers that be. Which powers that be do I speak of?
This type of 'terrorism' fits other well established models that are characterized as a 'strategy
of tension', and these historically were planned and executed by assets of US-NATO military
intelligence themselves, as part of the Gladio program.
It is unlikely in my view that ISIS, in the meaningful sense of the term, was behind this.
Terrorist attacks such as this have a purpose for actual terrorist groups when they are linked
with demands, a quid pro quo, release of prisoners, or some change in policy, recognition, or
even a cash payment. They come after general warnings, and some inability of the terrorist group
to get its demands met.
At the same time we have another 'ISIS' or, if you will, Al Qaeda - as a western intelligence and
operations program designed to attack targets designated by their US/NATO handlers.
So we have to divide between military ISIS - that army of mercenaries, misled youth, drug
addicts, ex-prisoners, and religious fanatics on the one hand, backed by Turkey and Gulf
monarchies, from the 'ISIS' that is more like Al Qaeda - specially trained intelligence and
security assets with knowledge of electronics, bomb making, counter-security/penetration, etc. -
who are directly controlled by CIA/Mossad/MI6 and Saudi security and Pakistani ISI.
These 'random' attacks serve no tactical purpose for an actual terrorist group in my view, and
only increase the chances that European voters or citizens will support some action, direct or
kinetic, against ISIS. So this does not serve ISIS's interests.
The US-NATO intelligence program, through Gladio has long time assets in Europe, and the last
year has been reminiscent of a time during the Cold War when this strategy of tension reached its
peak in Europe during the 1970's.
Then, as perhaps now, the goal was to push European citizens/voters into a hostile position
against a generally described 'enemy' - then communism, today 'Islamicism/Islamism'.
"... What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what the Democrats have done. ..."
"... The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view. ..."
"... Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers. ..."
"... The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces ..."
"... The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and less democratic. ..."
"... Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place ..."
What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what
the Democrats have done.
The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build
myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view.
Trump is impetuous and dangerous but he would be a lame duck president like Jimmy Carter; unable to muster Congressional support
to do much of anything.
Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster
support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers.
Since the Oligarchy supposedly control the media, the corporations, the money, the congress, the bureaucracy, the states, the
armed forces, etc, why on earth would one alleged Lefty in the White House be 'very dangerous' for them? Even assuming he really
wanted to be a real threat to them (as distinct from merely saying the things that get him votes), he simply wouldn't have the
power to do any more than a few minor things that marginally protect the interests of the 99.9% of us who are not so-called Oligarchs.
Did you watch the debate tonight? He brought up all the coups. He is a Social Democrat, so was Allende and Albeniz.
Cruz is a political whore, I am a simple Dem Socialist Bernie supporter.
Cruz is a phony Jesus freak (was Catholic), I am an Atheist, like all Dem Socialists.
Cruz is a Canadian, I am an American.
Cruz is a transgender, I am straight.
Cruz is a racist teabagger, who made fame by opposing even the most conservative Obama policies. I have Dr. King's portrait in
my office and a fierce enemy of social injustice.
Cruz is a demagogue, I simply pointed some historical facts (bloody Coups) and some of our historical atrocities around the globe.
Super delegates are almost completely with HRC, the WS call girl. Why...do you think it is so?
Again, Bernie is very dangerous for the ruling few that run this Oligarchy. He used the term Oligarchy again in this debate.
And he stated again that this is not a democracy.
Hillary and Bill are murderers, rapists, thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers. A long history of criminal violence. Google "Mena
Airport" and take it from there, you will be busy for days.
The elite don't care about you, they only care about their own access to your tax dollar.
Do not vote for Hillary, the world will be a better place when she and rapist Bill swing from the end of a rope
The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and
Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces
This is a cause worth fighting for. America is crumbling under our feet, yet the Uniparty continues to point us towards a downward
spiral. But, the People have awakened. They realize the game is rigged. Nothing illustrates this better than Big Media and the
DNC that marginalize Sanders and his message every chance it gets. Why? They obviously support the official Uniparty pick, Clinton.
America is fortunate that Sanders has stepped up to face the Clinton campaign machine. Sanders wants to do what is best for America.
Not the elite. But the People. Sanders has fought for civil rights and equality his entire political career. Name anyone else
who has done this over decades. We can use them on the good ship Reclaim America.
Join the political revolution of the People, for the People, by the People. Vote for Bernie. He is the only candidate running
who is for all of us, because he cares...
If nothing else, America, please stop voting for the same crowd, the Uniparty; they are literally sucking the life out of the
People and have been for decades (going back to Bill Clinton and beyond)...
The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this
was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and
less democratic.
Corporate media and Dem establishment campaign against Bernie's chances have completely backlashed. And the more he stays in the
race, the more likely he will get the max number of pledged delegates or nomination.
And the longer the race for nomination is, the more likely that the WS speeches, Sec of State emails, and bribes by foreign
sleazy regimes to the Foundation will be exposed before nomination.
Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms
of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place, wanted Bernie out by last night;...thanks to Michigan...we will see them all
in Philadelphia!
The WS(Ruben, Summers, Geithner,...)/Clinton/Obama wing of the party will be buried by Uncle Bernie when all this is said and
done, and with it the D-establishment media: msnbc athews, the executive Wolffe and te corporate-feminist Maddows!
The truth is that before Tuesday's elections, Clinton was ahead of Sanders by 673 to 477 pledged delegates, and her lead is now
745 to 540-by no means insurmountable, as a recent NBC-Washington Post poll shows (the numbers don't sum to 100% because 'Other'
and 'No opinion' replies were included): In December Clinton led Sanders 59% to 28%; in January 55% to 36%; in March 49% to 42%.
These figures show that Hillary's lead is slowly but steadily evaporating.
Anyone who believes that superdelegates can hand Clinton the nomination even if she loses the primary fight is betting the
Democratic Party is willing to commit suicide: Sanders supporters already loathe Hillary Clinton, and if she is carried to the
coronation throne on the backs of superdelegates, that loathing will multiply, and many of them will stay home or participate
in a write-in campaign for Bernie, enough to cause Hillary to lose the general election. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her friends
in the DNC will have achieved their goal: a woman will have been nominated, but at the price of making Donald Trump President,
and having to find another name for their party-"Democratic Party" would hardly be fitting after such a betrayal.
free trade is unfair trade it is like these subsidies on food where people pay tax and then farmers get money from govt to grow
what they are told. Then there is free trade deal such as with europe where the american subsidised food too compete with the
european subsidised food but there are differences in regulations so too compete fairly the europeans would have to reduce the
regulations in a race to the bottom with the Americans who are already suffering from obesity. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/12/ttip-disaster-left-brexit-would-be-worse
Here's my comment finally allowed to be published in the NYT today 3/8 after Michigan
Bernie is on the Bern across America --- and he hasn't even fired a 'shout heard round the world' yet.
When Bernie fires a non-violent 'shout heard round the world' to further ignite his & our "Political Revolution against Empire"
the Bern will burn through the rest of the primary states.
Understand that Bernie will increase both the enthusiasm and the education of Americans in evolutionary ways of understanding
the essential need for the "Political Revolution against Empire".
Initially, Bernie can point to the flaws and failures of a 'foreign policy' that does not serve the interests of Americans
nor peace in our world, any better than domestic economic tyranny at home, because our country is being pushed by the same corrupted
politics to "act like a global Empire abroad".
Even the most trusted elder anchorman and author of "Greatest Generation", Tom Brokaw, on "Meet the Press" shocked Chuck Toad
and other young pundits at the 'Round Table' when he explained, "When Trump and Cruz are talking about three year old orphans
and refugees [from Syria to Europe], what we're really talking about is three year old orphans and refugees, caused by
American policy".
Such truth telling by older and politically experienced people like Bernie, Tom, and the late Walter Cronkite is what has radically
changed, even Revolutionized the political landscape as it did half a century ago when such truthful shocks caused LBJ not to
run and admit, "If I've lost Cronkite, we've lost the war"
Looks like the corporate media attempts to keep Bernie Sanders coverage down, and making any attention they do give him negative
isn't totally working... what will they try next?
I just don't like the slaughter of half a million Syrians and Libyans and 10 million refugees facing devastation of their lives
just so the USA and NATO can control oil supplies out of the Middle East. Its not a good look Hillary.
I'm not all that happy about the splitting up of Syria just to isolate Iran and destroy the Russian economy while risking a nuclear
war.
illary needs to explain why we can't have world peace because the insecurity and armaments industry makes so much money for the
1%. In fact Hilary needs to prove she cares about the worlds ordinary people like the Palestinians living under the yoke of the
cruel oppresive Israeli Gogernment. And she would need to demonstrate her concern with policies to help the people living on the
streets of America before I would support her.
(RECENT!) Hillary Clinton's Email About Gay Parents Should Seriously Trouble Her LGBT Supporters
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/01/hillary_clinton_on_gay_rights_a_new_email_is_troubling.html
Looks like she hasn't really "evolved" on LGBT acceptance, but is simply taking on positions that she thinks is politically beneficial
to her, as usual. Much of her campaign platform (specifically her sudden focus on social and civil issues) is pretty much copied
over from Sander's after all.
Racism is still alive. Black lives DO matter, and the things BLM activists are doing may look excessive, but I find it necessary
if they are EVER to be heard by the government. Things are desperate now, and the Clintons has a hand in the current sad sate
of things for African Americans due to the policies that they have pushed. Bernie have repeatedly highlighted how Black people
in America is oppressed. Just look at the % of black vs white jobless rate, and % of black vs white people being jailed for weed
possession. Something needs to be done. "Enough is Enough" as Bernie says.
"... What does "rebuild the military" mean? Has the budget been gutted? Have the useless weapons programs like the F-35 finally been shut down? No, the United States still spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. And the official military budget is only part of the story. The total spending on the US empire is well over one trillion dollars per year. Under the Obama Administration the military budget is still 41 percent more than it was in 2001, and seven percent higher than at the peak of the Cold War. ..."
"... Russia, which the neocons claim is the greatest threat to the United States, spends about one-tenth what we do on its military. China, the other "greatest threat," has a military budget less than 25 percent of ours. ..."
"... I would rebuild it in a very different way, however. I would not rebuild it according to the demands of the military-industrial complex, which cares far more about getting rich than about protecting our country. I would not rebuild the military so that it can overthrow more foreign governments who refuse to do the bidding of Washington's neocons. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better protect our wealthy allies in Europe, NATO, Japan, and South Korea. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better occupy countries overseas and help create conditions for blowback here at home. ..."
"... No. The best way to really "rebuild" the US military would be to stop abusing the military in the first place. The purpose of the US military is to defend the United States. It is not to make the world safe for oil pipelines, or corrupt Gulf monarchies, or NATO, or Israel. Unlike the neocons who are so eager to send our troops to war, I have actually served in the US military. I understand that to keep our military strong we must constrain our foreign policy. We must adopt a policy of non-intervention and a strong defense of this country. The neocons will weaken our country and our military by promoting more war. We need to "rebuild" the military by restoring as its mission the defense of the United States, not of Washington's overseas empire. ..."
The Republican presidential debates have become so heated and filled with insults, it almost seems
we are watching a pro wrestling match. There is no civility, and I wonder whether the candidates
are about to come to blows. But despite what appears to be total disagreement among them, there is
one area where they all agree. They all promise that if elected they will "rebuild the military."
What does "rebuild the military" mean? Has the budget been gutted? Have the useless weapons programs
like the F-35 finally been shut down? No, the United States still spends more on its military than
the next 14 countries combined. And the official military budget is only part of the story. The total
spending on the US empire is well over one trillion dollars per year. Under the Obama Administration
the military budget is still 41 percent more than it was in 2001, and seven percent higher than at
the peak of the Cold War.
Russia, which the neocons claim is the greatest threat to the United States, spends about
one-tenth what we do on its military. China, the other "greatest threat," has a military budget less
than 25 percent of ours.
Last week the Pentagon announced it is sending a small naval force of US warships to the South
China Sea because, as Commander of the US Pacific Command Adm. Harry Harris told the House Armed
Services Committee, China is militarizing the area. Yes, China is supposedly militarizing the area
around China, so the US is justified in sending its own military to the area. Is that a wise use
of the US military?
The US military maintains over 900 bases in 130 countries. It is actively involved in at least
seven wars right now, including in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and elsewhere. US Special Forces are deployed
in 134 countries across the globe. Does that sound like a military that has been gutted?
I do not agree with the presidential candidates, but I do agree that the military needs to be
rebuilt. I would rebuild it in a very different way, however. I would not rebuild it according
to the demands of the military-industrial complex, which cares far more about getting rich than about
protecting our country. I would not rebuild the military so that it can overthrow more foreign governments
who refuse to do the bidding of Washington's neocons. I would not rebuild the military so that it
can better protect our wealthy allies in Europe, NATO, Japan, and South Korea. I would not rebuild
the military so that it can better occupy countries overseas and help create conditions for blowback
here at home.
No. The best way to really "rebuild" the US military would be to stop abusing the military
in the first place. The purpose of the US military is to defend the United States. It is not to make
the world safe for oil pipelines, or corrupt Gulf monarchies, or NATO, or Israel. Unlike the neocons
who are so eager to send our troops to war, I have actually served in the US military. I understand
that to keep our military strong we must constrain our foreign policy. We must adopt a policy of
non-intervention and a strong defense of this country. The neocons will weaken our country and our
military by promoting more war. We need to "rebuild" the military by restoring as its mission the
defense of the United States, not of Washington's overseas empire.
"... This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class. ..."
"... One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal. ..."
"... The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is. ..."
"... Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. ..."
"... Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump? ..."
"... Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing. ..."
"... Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute. ..."
"... why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia ..."
"... recycling mechanism for capitalism ..."
"... there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia ..."
"... Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. ..."
"... For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...). ..."
"... So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them. ..."
"... He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor. ..."
"... Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people. ..."
Be nice to have a book called "The Foreign Policy of the 1%".
Maybe include references to GATT, TPP, oil wars as mentioned in the presentation.
Other questions:
1) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to Economic Hitman, John Perkins?
2) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to conservative founders like Jeane Kirkpatrick?
3) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to rise to Regan Revolution? Trump?
This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be
copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the
neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation
process of global capitalism & its "1%" class.
Deepest thanks to Vijay Prashad...and to others
like professor Bennis (present in the audience)... whose in-depth analysis of the system can, if
studied, contribute to putting the nascent 'political revolution' Bernie calls for...into a real
democratic movement in this country. We are so woefully ignorant as 'members of the 99%'- it seems
worst of all in America-- intentionally kept isolated from knowing anything about this country/corporation's
'foreign policy' (aka as Capitalist system policy or 'the 1% policy) that Bernie cannot even broach
what Vijay has given here. But he at least opens up some of our can of worms, the interrconnectdedness
of class-interests and the devastation this country's (and the global cabal of ) capitalist voracious
economic interests rains upon the planet.
The Mid-East is a product of Capitalism that will, if
we don't recognize the process & change course & priorties, will soon overtake all of Africa and
all 'undeveloped' (pre-Capitalist) countries around the globe--The destruction and never-ending
blur of war and annihilation of peoples, cultures and even the possibility of 'political evolution'
is a product of the profit-at-any-and-all-costs that is the hidden underbelly of a system of economics
that counts humanity as nothing. It is a sick system. It is a system whose sickness brings death
to all it touches... and we are seeing now it is bringing ITS OWN DEATH as well.
The '99% policy'
(again a phrase Prashad should be congratulated for bringing into the language) is indeed one
that understands that our needs --the people's needs, not 'national interests' AKA capitalist
corporate/financial interests --- are global, that peace projects are essentially anti-capitalist
projects.... and our needs-to build a new society here in the U.S. must begin to be linked to
seeing Capitalism as the root cause of so much suffering that must be replaced by true democratic
awakening a- r/evolutionary process that combines economic and civic/political -- that we must
support in every way possible. Step One: support the movement for changed priorities & values
by voting class-consciously.
The 1% or the oligarchy have completely won the world, our only way to fight against such power
is to abandon buying their products, take great care on who you vote for in any election, only
people who have a long record of social thinking should be considers. They can be diminished but
not beaten.
One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating,
is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination
economic empire is the goal.
The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course
they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and
global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put
forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see
the whole electoral mirage for what it is.
All of what's been said about the elites, the one percent, has already been said many years ago.
The conversation about the wealthy elites destroying our world has changed only in the area of
how much of our world has and is being destroyed. Absolutely nothing else has changed, nothing
else.
Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and
their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than
ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing,
especially the race war against the Arab people. Meanwhile, as we continue to speak the ocean
is licking at our doorstep, the average mean temperature has ticked up a few notches and we are
all completely distracted by which power hungry corporate zealot is going to occupy the office
which is responsible for making our human condition even more dire. The circus that is this election
is merely a ploy by the elites to make us believe that we actually do have a choice. Uh-huh; yet
if I were to suggest what REALLY needs to be done to save the human race I would be in a court
which functions only to impoverish those of us who try to speak the truth of our situation objectively.
The 'Justice' system's only function is to render us powerless. Whether one is guilty or innocent
is completely irrelevant anymore. All they have to do is file charges and they have your wealth.
Good luck to all of us as we all talk ourselves to death.
Dear denden11: You get gold stars in heaven as far as I'm concerned for telling the exact truth
in the plainest possible terms. Bravissimo. "Talk/ing/ ourselves to death" is, I'm sorry to say,
what we are doing. I've been working on these issues for forty years, looking for an exit from
this completely interlocked system. I'm sorry to say I haven't seen the exit. I do understand
how we have painted ourselves into this corner over the past 250 years (since the so-called Enlightenment),
but without repentance on our part and grace on God's part, we're doomed because we all believe
the Big Lies pumped into us moment by moment by Big Brother. And it's the Big Lies that keep us
terminally confused and fragmented.
Don't Believe the Hype was an NWA rap anthem over twenty year ago.
I always liked the shouted line, "And I don't take Ritalin!"
Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does
the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump?
In defeat, will Sander's campaign supporters radicalize or demoralize into apathy or tepid
support for Hillary - on the grounds that she's less of an evil than Trumpty Dumbty?
If not defeated, will Sanders and his campaign mobilize the People to fight the powers that
be? Otherwise, he has no real power base, short of selling out on his domestic spending promises
and becoming another social democratic lapdog for Capital- like Tony Blair.
Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is
weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept.
It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show.
What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing.
As material conditions change drastically for tens of millions of USAns, the old propaganda loses
effect.
New propaganda is required to channel the new class tensions. Still an opening may be created.
People can't heat their homes with propaganda, the kids are living in the basement and grandpa
can't afford a nursing home and he's drinking himself to death. That's the new normal, or variations
on it for a lot of people who don't believe the hype anymore.
Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything
for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more
acute.
Great work Vijay...got my "filters" back on. Cut and pasted original comment below despite TRNN
labeling of "time of posting" which is irrelevant at this point.
Wow...now that I got my rational filters back on this was a great piece by Vijay and succinctly
states what many of us who "attempt" to not only follow ME events but to understand not only the
modern history by the motives of the major players in the region. Thanks for this piece and others...looking
forward to the others.
Posted earlier while my mind was on 2016 election cycle watching MSM in "panic mode"
Thought this was going to be a rational discussion on US foreign policy until the part on ?
"Trumps Red Book". I had hoped to rather hear, "The Red Book of the American Templars" ...taking
from the Knights Templar in Europe prior the collapse of the feudal system. I will say that Vijay's
comment on Cruz was quite appropriate though it would also have been better to not only put it
into context but also illustrate that Cruz's father Rafael Cruz believes in a system contrary
to the founding ideals of the US Constitution: He states in an interview with mainstream media
during his son's primary campaign that [to paraphrase] "secularism is evil and corrupt". Here
is an excerpt of his bio from Wiki:
"During an interview conducted by the Christian Post in 2014, Rafael Cruz stated, "I think
we cannot separate politics and religion; they are interrelated. They've always been interrelated."[29]
Salon described Cruz as a "Dominionist, devoted to a movement that finds in Genesis a mandate
that 'men of faith' seize control of public institutions and govern by biblical principle."[30]
However, The Public Eye states that Dominionists believe that the U.S. Constitution should be
the vehicle for remaking America as a Christian nation.[31]"
Fareed Zakaria interviewed a columnist from the Wall Street Journal today on Fareed's GPS program
and flatly asked him [paraphrased], "Is not the Wall Street Journal responsible for creating the
racist paradigm that Trump took advantage of "? Let us begin with rational dialogue and not demagogy.
Quite frankly with regard to both Cruz and Trump [in context of the 2016 elections cycle] a more
insightful comment would have been...Change cannot come from within the current electoral processes
here in the US with Citizen's United as its "masthead" and "Corporations are people as its rallying
cry"!
Not the West....just the F.I.R.E industries...driving the housing bubble; shopping malls; office
buildings; buying municipal bonds [as they the municipalities bought and built prisons; jails;
SWAT vehicles and security equipment (developed by the Israelis); and keeping the insurance companies
afloat while AllState had time after Katrina to pitch their subsidiaries allowing these subsidiaries
to file for bankruptcy]...now all the maintenance expense is coming due and cities and counties
are going broke... along with the Saudi investments here in US.
Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we
are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation
of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. What about the 99 percent?
While populations simply need and want also income and investment security globally.
What about
populations in massive consumer debt for education, housing, etc. to fund one percent Growth.
Laborers across globe are all in same boat simply labor for food without anything else to pass
along to progeny but what is most important ethics. A world government established by corporatism
advantage by authority of law and advantage all directed toward endless returns to oligarchy family
cartels is not an acceptable world organization of division of resources because it is tranny,
exclusive, extraction and fraudulent. Such madness does NOT float all boats.
All this while oligarchs
control Taxation of government authority and hidden excessive investment and fraud return taxation.
While Governments in west don't even jail corporate criminals while west claims law is just while
skewed in favor of protecting one percent, their returns on investment and investments. Billionaires
we find in some parts of so called Unjust regions of world not yet on board with cartel game are
calling out fraud that harms individuals and society aggressively.
TEHRAN, Iran - An Iranian court has sentenced a well-known tycoon to death for corruption linked
to oil sales during the rule of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the judiciary spokesman
said Sunday.
Babak Zanjani and two of his associates were sentenced to death for "money laundering," among
other charges, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejehi said in brief remarks broadcast on state TV. He did
not identify the two associates. Previous state media reports have said the three were charged
with forgery and fraud.
"The court has recognized the three defendants as 'corruptors on earth' and sentenced them
to death," said Ejehi. "Corruptors on earth" is an Islamic term referring to crimes that are punishable
by death because they have a major impact on society. The verdict, which came after a nearly five-month
trial, can be appealed.
So when Bernie winds up on the regime change band wagon (of mostly leftist governments) and stays
silent in the face of US aided and approved of coups (Honduras/Zelaya being the next most recent
before Ukraine) while railing against the billionaire class on Wall Street and the neoliberal
trade agreements, he's not only missing the elephant in the room; he's part of this elephant.
For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in
the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism)
has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or
even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm
of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign
appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation
it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful
yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru
history 'The 99%'...).
And as all past power-elites have done, our '1%' has misread the age-old
evolution of culture when an old system NO LONGER WORKS that makes freedom, imagination & rebellion
more acceptable more attractive, more exciting and NECESSARY. Then, once energized BY NEED, DESIRE,
and yes HOPE....change begins and can't be stopped like a slow-moving rain that keeps moving.
As with past eras & past changes, in our own day this 'millennial plus 60's' powerful generational
tide is JUST BEGINNING to feel our strength & ability. Turning what was supposed to be a globalist-coronation
into what right now certainly seems like a step towards real change, towards building a recognition
of the power, we 'the 99%' can --IF WE ACT WISELY & WITH COMMITTMENT begin the work of creating
a new world.
Criticising Bernie is criticizing the real way progress works...We need to get out
of an ego-centric adolescent approach to human problem-solving, understand we need to keep our
movement growing even if it doesn't look the WAY WE EXPECTED IT TO LOOK...keep clear on GOALS
that Bernie's campaign is just a part of. The 'left' needs to recognize its our historic moment:
to either move ahead or SELF-destruct.. Impatience needs to be replaced by a serious look down
the road for our children's future. If we don't, the power elite of the System wins again (vote
Hillary?? don't vote??). We need to take a breath & rethink how change really happens because
this lost opportunity Is a loss we can no longer afford. The movement must be 'bigger than Bernie'.
I just hope he does not get forced to resign which the L-MSM is now beginning to parrot so Hillary
can win given the huge turnouts the Repugs are getting in the primaries. I want to see four candidates
at the National Convention...in addition to Third parties.
No one can be elected Commander and Chief by stating they will not defend oligarchs interests
as well as populations interests. We agree populations interests are negated and subverted all
over earth . That cannot be changed by armed rebellion but it can be changed by electing electable
voices of reason such as Sanders. Sanders will fight to protect populations and resist oligarchy
war mongering while holding oligarchs accountable. Sanders will address corrupted law and injustice.
Vote Sanders.
You are probably correct in your thinking, but the real power will never allow any potential effective
changes to the system that is. People who try usually end up dead.
This is why we must as citizens become active players in government far greater then we are today,
we must do far more then voting. We must have time from drudgery of earning a substandard wage
that forces most to have little time for advancing democracy. Without such time oligarchs and
one percent end-up controlling everything.
We can BEGIN the march toward mountain top toward socializations
which will promote aware individualizations. We don't expect we will advance anything without
oppositions in fact we expect increased attacks. Those increased attacks can become our energy
that unites masses as we all observe the insanity they promote as our direction. We merely must
highlight insanity and path forward toward sanity. Nothing can make lasting change this generation
the march will take generations. The speed advance only will depend on how foolish oligarchs are
at attempts to subvert public awareness seeking change. As they become more desperate our movements
become stronger. We must refrain from violence for that is only thing that can subvert our movement.
He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking
down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor.
Instead he does the LOTE thing for the neoliberal-neocon party "D". That's just dishonest bullshit
opportunism.
Do not receives daily email for a long time without clue why? so haven't in contact with TRN's
daily report until subject video appears on youtube website. and impressed by the panelists's
congregated pivotal works done thru all these years.
"... Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United States of America. ..."
"... Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia's attack on Yemen, Ukraine's attack on its former Russian provinces, and Israel's destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people. ..."
"... In a recent article , Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children's soccer games, medical centers and people's homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard of the thousands of murdered innocents as "collateral damage." ..."
"... violence creates terrorists ..."
"... The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and its own citizens. ..."
Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians
by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian
populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the
Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United
States of America.
Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia's attack on Yemen, Ukraine's attack
on its former Russian provinces, and Israel's destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people.
The American state's murderous rampage through the Middle East and North Africa was enabled by
the Europeans who provided diplomatic and military cover for Washington's crimes. Today the Europeans
are suffering the consequences as they are over-run by millions of refugees from Washington's wars.
The German women who are raped by the refugees can blame their chancellor, a Washington puppet, for
enabling the carnage from which refugees flee to Europe.
In a recent
article, Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of
civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children's soccer games, medical
centers and people's homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral
conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard
of the thousands of murdered innocents as "collateral damage."
If there is any outcry from Washington's European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassals,
it is too muted to be heard in the US.
As Kramer points out, American presidential hopefuls are competing on the basis of who will commit
the worst war crimes. A leading candidate has endorsed torture, despite its prohibition under US
and international law. The candidate proclaims that "torture works" - as if that is a justification
- despite the fact that experts know that it does not work. Almost everyone being tortured will say
anything in order to stop the torture. Most of those tortured in the "war on terror" have proven
to have been innocents. They don't know the answers to the questions even if they were prepared to
give truthful answers. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn relates that Soviet dissidents likely to be picked
up and tortured by the Soviet secret police would memorize names on gravestones in order to comply
with demands for the names of their accomplices. In this way, torture victims could comply with demands
without endangering innocents.
Washington's use of invasion, bombings, and murder by drone as its principle weapon against terrorists
is mindless. It shows a government devoid of all intelligence, focused on killing alone. Even a fool
understands that violence creates terrorists. Washington hasn't even the intelligence of
fools.
The American state now subjects US citizens to execution without due process of law despite the
strict prohibition by the US Constitution. Washington's lawlessness toward others now extends to
the American people themselves.
The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government
has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and
its own citizens.
"... Furqa al-Sultan Murad receives weapons from the U.S. and its allies as part of a covert program, overseen by the CIA , that aids rebel groups struggling to overthrow the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, according to rebel officials and analysts tracking the conflict. ..."
"... If indeed 'buzzfeed" has there story correct then Russia will be continuing the campaign of kicking our fucking asses in new innovative ways that were never thought possible! ..."
"... I happen to believe that like the Seymour Hersh PR psyops stunt of a story about DOD not following orders from the Commander-in-Chief and "going rogue" on him in those Countries they already destroyed is still committing treason no matter how you slice it . ..."
"... In short the CIA is at the head of the MIC always has been and always will be until it's time of death which may be coming sooner than we think! ..."
"... The invisible hand of the market applied to mayhem - US style? ..."
"... The US Doesn't have a Foreign Relations policy, it's Israel's foreign relations policy installed on US soil. ..."
"... But it looks like the YPG in northeast Syria (where the US spec ops where deployed) is the favorite since they seem to have gotten the advanced Javelin anti tank missile while the moderate Jihadists only got the not as effective TOW. Video and photo at RT. ..."
"... Pictures have emerged on social media which appear to show Syrian Kurds with an advanced US-produced anti-tank missile. A video allegedly shows a rocket blowing up an Islamic State truck. Washington has denied "providing the YPG with weapons." ..."
"... The FGM-148 Javelin is a portable anti-tank missile, which was developed by the United States. It is able to lock on to potential targets using infrared imaging, which makes it a lot more effective than the TOW missile system, which militias fighting against IS had been using, as the TOW is heavier and requires a portable power supply ..."
"... "Also, Javelin launchers and missiles are rather expensive. In 2002, a single Javelin command launch unit cost $126,000, and each missile cost around $78,000." ..."
Officials with Syrian rebel battalions that receive covert backing from one arm of the U.S.
government told BuzzFeed News that they recently began fighting rival rebels supported by another
arm of the U.S. government.
The infighting between American proxies is the latest setback for the Obama administration's
Syria policy and lays bare its contradictions as violence in the country gets worse.
The confusion is playing out on the battlefield - with the U.S. effectively engaged in a proxy
war with itself.
***
Furqa al-Sultan Murad receives weapons from the U.S. and its allies as part of a covert
program, overseen by the CIA , that aids rebel groups struggling to overthrow the government of
Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, according to rebel officials and analysts tracking the conflict.
The Kurdish militants, on the other hand, receive weapons and support from the Pentagon
as part of U.S. efforts to fight ISIS. Known as the People's Protection Units, or YPG,
they are
the centerpiece of the Obama administration's strategy against the extremists in Syria and
coordinate regularly with U.S. airstrikes.
The Daily Beast also
reports that U.S. allies are fighting CIA-backed rebels. The U.S. is supporting the Kurds, who
are the best on-the-ground fighters against ISIS yet America's close ally Turkey is
trying to wipe out the Kurds . Moreover, the U.S., Turkey and Saudi Arabia are
all
using the Incerlik air base in
Adana, Turkey , on
the border with Syria to launch military operations in Syria. The U.S. is using Incerlik to SUPPORT
the Kurds, but Turkey is using the
EXACT SAME air base to
BOMB the Kurds . In addition, the U.S. is supporting
Shia
Muslims in Iraq but supporting their arch-enemy
Sunnis Muslims in neighboring Syria.
And the U.S. claims to be fighting the war on terror AGAINST the exact same groups ISIS and
Al Qaeda that
our
closest allies are SUPPORTING . Absolutely insane
If indeed 'buzzfeed" has there story correct then Russia will be continuing the campaign
of kicking our fucking asses in new innovative ways that were never thought possible!
I happen to believe that like the Seymour Hersh PR psyops stunt of a story about DOD not
following orders from the Commander-in-Chief and "going rogue" on him in those Countries they
already destroyed is still committing treason no matter how you slice it .... is all simply
a way of attempting to draw Russia in closer to get intel on them while they continue to work
miracles on our "proxies" which is depleting our stable of Mercs R' Us day by day.
The event that took place this past weekend in Homs and Damascus is indicative of just that.
And if Russia did indeed make the mistake of giving too much information out to Uncle Sam, the
U.S. military and Langley won't be enjoying that luxury again!...
I'm pretty certain that "Winter Soldier" Kerry's desire to carve up Syria should the cease
fire aka Plan B not come to fruition... It was always the Only Option on the table for Langley
and the Pentagon!!
In short the CIA is at the head of the MIC always has been and always will be until it's
time of death which may be coming sooner than we think!
The 'insouciant' Goyim remain mesmerized under the spell of entertainment and Political-Correctness
gone mad. Hence, unable are they to mount any sort of opposition to this 'soft takeover' of their
nation.
But it looks like the YPG in northeast Syria (where the US spec ops where deployed) is
the favorite since they seem to have gotten the advanced Javelin anti tank missile while the moderate
Jihadists only got the not as effective TOW. Video and photo at RT.
Pictures have emerged on social media which appear to show Syrian Kurds with an advanced
US-produced anti-tank missile. A video allegedly shows a rocket blowing up an Islamic State truck.
Washington has denied "providing the YPG with weapons."
If the video, believed to have been filmed near the Syrian town of Shaddadi, is authenticated
it would show that Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) forces have been given an upgrade
in technology. The footage shows a truck allegedly belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL)
on the receiving end of a direct hit from the missile.
The FGM-148 Javelin is a portable anti-tank missile, which was developed by the United
States. It is able to lock on to potential targets using infrared imaging, which makes it a lot
more effective than the TOW missile system, which militias fighting against IS had been using,
as the TOW is heavier and requires a portable power supply
"Assuming he's not firing from the side of a mountain or on top of a compound, it's definitely
a Javelin," Corporal Thomas Gray, a former Marine Javelin gunner who watched the video told the
Washington Post.
However John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said that he was unable to confirm whether
the image was authentic and that "nothing has changed about our policy of not providing the YPG
with weapons."
"Also, Javelin launchers and missiles are rather expensive. In 2002, a single Javelin command
launch unit cost $126,000, and each missile cost around $78,000."
While we would be the first
to admit that Jeffrey Sachs was the godfather of "shock therapy" (aka "the economic rape of Russia"
and several other xUSSR republics), he is right as for the ongoing Syria bloodbath which has come to
define the geopolitical situation for the past 3 years. And how this is an event that would "surely
rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment" if the truth were fully known, we
agree 100 percent.
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. ..."
"... As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria. ..."
"... And Israeli right-wingers are naοve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists. ..."
"... Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad. ..."
"... When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change. ..."
"... Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency. ..."
"... This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'ιtat resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations. ..."
"... And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection , in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people). ..."
"... Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today. ..."
"... Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria. ..."
"... She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER. ..."
"... Well said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not. ..."
"... Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless. ..."
"... It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency? ..."
"... The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know. ..."
"... Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello? ..."
"... More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. ..."
"... she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being. ..."
"... Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world. ..."
"... Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him. ..."
"... The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, ..."
"... That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal. ..."
"... what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie. ..."
"... They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers... ..."
"... years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world. ..."
"... But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine: ..."
"... Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations ..."
"... Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes! ..."
"... Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care. ..."
"... Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here! ..."
In the
Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution
on a Syrian ceasefire:
But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution.
At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set
forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake
in Syria together.
This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's
role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.
In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special
Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of
Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's
insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage.
Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10
million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.
As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad,
or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic
and misguided for that reason.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading
Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable
foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel.
Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria.
This idea is incredibly naοve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact,
for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat"
Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and
balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naοve, and
deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken
view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.
Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing
Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between
Israel and Syria
to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton
pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.
When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front
of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain
a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime
change.
In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment
conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed
insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government
made public
its position: "Assad must go."
Since then and until the
recent fragile UN Security Council accord, the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless
Assad is first deposed. The US policy--under Clinton and until recently--has been: regime change
first, ceasefire after. After all, it's only Syrians who are dying. Annan's peace efforts were sunk
by the United States' unbending insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least accompany
a ceasefire. As the
Nation editors
put it in August 2012:
The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before negotiations could seriously
begin, along with the refusal to include Iran in the process, doomed [Annan's] mission.
The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go, and was not defeated. Russia
came to his support. Iran came to his support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves
radical jihadists with their own agendas. The chaos opened the way for the Islamic State, building
on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on
the considerable backing by Saudi funds. If the truth were fully known, the multiple scandals
involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment.
The hubris of the United States in this approach seems to know no bounds. The tactic of CIA-led
regime change is so deeply enmeshed as a "normal" instrument of U.S. foreign policy that it is hardly
noticed by the U.S. public or media. Overthrowing another government is against the U.N. charter
and international law. But what are such niceties among friends?
This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international
law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup
d'ιtat resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably,
a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to
be manipulated by U.S. covert operations.
Removing a leader, even if done "successfully," doesn't solve any underlying geopolitical problems,
much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that
now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such
as Russia's backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery
caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What surprise, then, the Clinton
acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and guide?
And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a
bit of this story last month in
describing the CIA-Saudi connection, in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations
in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped.
Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver
North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert
operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people).
Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument
of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not
limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War
in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated
insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today.
It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures. Presidents get along by going
along with arms contractors, generals, and CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from
political attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S. military might, not
restraining it. Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures
to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in
the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government.
Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down
the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by
supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden
from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster
in Syria.
The people of the United States do not want that woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton to have relations
with the people of the United States. She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary
of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to
serve in any government capacity - EVER.
Simple equation....war=money=power. Perpetual warfare is the post 911 gold rush and every establishment
politician in every country is the snake oil salesman pushing this through. The people on the
top make money and the rest of us get killed and go broke.
Max South
Not only the root cause, but also to-ols are important: now Western media/StateDep try depict
what happens in Syria as sectarian, all while majority of both Syrian army and government are
Sunni (even Assad's wife is Sunni) -- secular ones.
Syrian government is only hope for them, as well as for Christians, Kurds and all other ethnic
and religious minorities that fight against Wahhabi/Salafist jihadists.
Sanders' platform is expansive and IMO he has provided the most detail on how he will get things
done, which anyone can find out with a bit of investigation (http://berniesanders.com/issues/).
But all of it doesn't matter since you can't predict how events will unfold. In this regard, I
trust Sanders more than anyone else to decide what is best for all people in the the country (and
even the world). I personally will do well with anyone but I think Sanders is looking out for
the average person more than anyone else.
Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that
ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that
whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless.
It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind
the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over
and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency?
Bijan Sharifi
as an iranian-american (and veteran), i appreciate sen sanders bringing this up in the debate.
Bijan Sharifi Indeed. The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess
and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure.
How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know.
Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I
al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want
her to be president? Hello?
More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her
disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that
Hillary was not. As soon as she returns to office expect more of her warfare first and diplomacy 'meh'.
Gary Pack
Ignacio, she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain,
and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being.
This is what Trump has been alluding to in re Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to
bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world.
Where & Why was Obama
& Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans
have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs
& stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed.
power & indifference of those before him.
James Elliott cheerleading will not get anything done, I don't think Bernie understands how to
get things done in our system, reality is 40 years of bad will not be fixed in even 4 years.
The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election
and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution,
vote every election you are alive and you will let your children and their children a better
life.
Harvey Riggs
That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world
peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US
master plan that mainly supports the US's goal.
More messes in this world has been started with covert means in order to get what we want and
millions upon milllions are suffering and the rest of the world countries 1'%ers who run those
countries are scared to stand up aguinst the US and lose that under the table support.
what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters
believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie.
They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to
differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers...
Additionally, years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much
for women by their gender alone saving the world.
Sheila Rajan
Looking at the various misguided US excursions over the past 2 decades from outside of America,
this comes as no surprise. Clinton's deep involvement in these venal adventures comes as no surprise
either. Bill Clinton may have been adored in liberal America, but he was NOT, outside of your
borders. To us he appeared as just another one in a long line of Presidents under the sway of
the arms manufacturers, CIA, banks and financiers. Hillary Clinton is just an offshoot.
But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine
with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary
Clinton's at The State Department.
Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine:
Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts
of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations
as an official policy using drones, black ops, spec ops, military "contractors", hired mercenaries,
war lord militias and the like; the illegal and immoral acts of war cloaked in the Israeli framed
rubric of "national defense".
Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the
world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them
for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures
of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes!
Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they
care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care.
Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt
Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as
we had up here!
This is the review of the book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise
of America's Secret Government by one of Moon of Alabama readers.
Looks like the course on making The USA imperial power (which was related later in Washington consensus and Wolfowitz doctrine)
was taken directly after WWII. Cold War was just a smoke screen under which the USA tried to establish hegemony over the world. Both
documents could well be written by Alan Dulles himself.
Any president who dare to deviate from this is ostracized , impeached or killed. So the political role of intelligence agencies
since their establishment by Truman was to serve as the brain center if USA imperial beuracracy (as well as the tools for projecting
it abroad)
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that
conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for wars and for expanding the US influence abroad for
multinationals, and that is what they have done for 70 years (Dulles came from Wall Street). Among other things it
deliberately creates small wars just to demonstrate the US military might. Neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative
Michael Ledeen suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it
against the wall, just to show we mean business."
Another book deserves to mentioned here too here too. Prouty book
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control
of the United States and the World (which was suppressed in 1973 when irt was published and did not see shelves before
republishing in 2011) is described like the the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy conducted by CIA has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964,
managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S.
military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in
critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition
and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard
Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists"
to achieve our goals. ..."
"... Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested
in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969. ..."
"... the ruling elite of the US was deeply split. ..."
"... A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties
with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important
that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that
in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!). ..."
"... And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. ..."
"... Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar)
the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday
through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia. ..."
I just finished listening to the audio book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise
of America's Secret Government . It was very good I think.
I'll spare you a full review, but the Dulles era has some very important and interesting similarities with our own (in fact,
the ties are most certainly those first formed during the Dulles brothers tenure at State and CIA). Talbot doesn't delve deeply
into these more recent aspects, but he does acknowledge them. And the similarities are quite clear. We find Dulles attempting
to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are
personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve
our goals.
Initially I had heard that it was a Allen Dulles biography, and though there is a lot of detail about his personal life, his
marriage, and even his kids, I would say it strays from what one might consider a "standard" biography and is more about Dulles
and his times. For instance, there are a couple of chapters devoted just to the Kennedy Assassination, another on Oswald, and
one on the "Generals' putsch" in France in '61. Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed
by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately
the 1930s through the 1969.
Talbot uses Dulles life as the base to build up the important (and to my mind misunderstood and misconstrued) stories in recent
US history. That story is, of course, the following: despite the impression most Americans have of our country fighting the ultimate
"good war" against universally despised enemies - that fact is that the ruling elite of the US was deeply split.
A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up
ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were
so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot
makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!).
And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. And Talbot tracks this key
figure's fascist ties as he rises in the US power structure from his early years as an OSS man wheeling and dealing with Nazi
generals in Bern, Switzerland and on through Dulles' creation and/or support of fascist governments in Latin America, the Middle
East, and Africa during the Cold War. Talbot covers the events surrounding Dulles life excellently. Especially moving was his
chapter on Guatemala - the tragedy of the Arbenz family as a mirror of the tragedy of Guatemala is covered through the eyes of
the grandson of Arbez.
Talbot covers the horror stories of the results of America working closely with dictators like Trujillo, the Shah, Mobutu Sese
Seko, and Batista (he misses Indonesia though, an operation that caused the death of 1,000,000 Indonesians). But of course, as
an American, the most important question to Talbot is that of Dulles role in the Kennedy assassination. Talbot covers this
topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired"
and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours
that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia.
Allen Dulles papers released by CIA to Princeton are now online
Posted on January 23, 2008 by Dan Linke
The Central Intelligence Agency has released to Princeton University some 7,800 documents covering the career of Allen W.
Dulles, the agency's longest-serving director, which now can be viewed online at
http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/st74cq497
Dulles (1893-1969), a Princeton alumnus who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961, was renowned for his role in shaping U.S.
intelligence operations during the Cold War. Last March, the CIA released to Princeton a collection of letters, memoranda,
reports and other papers - some still redacted - that the agency had removed from Dulles' papers after his death and before
their transfer to the University in 1974.
"... "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in," noted the whistleblower who leaked "The Pentagon Papers." ..."
"... Yet Ellsberg also warns that it is possible to overstate the importance of the U.S. military, because the military, Congress, and the various U.S. national security agencies all serve interests outside a sitting administration. ..."
"... "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those companies," he said. ..."
"... The United States claims to support democracy throughout the world, but, Ellsberg said: "That is false. That is a cover story." ..."
"... If anyone comes to power that opposes U.S. interests, American forces can overthrow them, Ellsberg argues. Washington's relationships with other nations are not democratic, he says, but imperial, as much as they were in the time of Sargon, the world's first emperor, who Ellsberg introduced in Chapter 1 of this series. As a result, U.S. foreign policy has supported torturers and war crimes for over a century. ..."
"... Philip Agee, the CIA's highest ranking defector, always said CIA stands for Capitalism' Invisible Army ..."
"... Ellsberg is exactly right. The US is not a democracy. The US regime is the enforcement wing of multi-national capital. It is a wholly captured government by captialists. ..."
"... There's nothing new about the claim that Eisenhower deleted the reference to Congress just before his far-famed farewell speech. This has been well-known for decades. ..."
"[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and
the multinational corporations that they invest in," noted the whistleblower who leaked "The Pentagon
Papers."
In
the second chapter of his extended conversation with Arn Menconi, Daniel Ellsberg describes how,
after his trial for leaking the Pentagon Papers, he began to realize that the Vietnam War was not
an "aberration" but a representation of standard U.S. foreign policy.
"The big difference was the Vietnamese resisted us," Ellsberg explained. He says learned more
about the nature of the U.S. military-industrial complex as he dug deeper into the origins of the
conflict.
On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave
a famous farewell address which popularized the term "military-industrial complex," but Ellsberg
says the outgoing president had originally intended to refer to the "military-industrial-congressional
complex," only to drop the reference to Congress at the last minute. The whistleblower explains
that allies of the military and nuclear scientists in Congress blocked Eisenhower's efforts to create
a nuclear test ban treaty with Russia, inspiring Eisenhower's speech, which warned the American public
to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex."
Yet Ellsberg also warns that it is possible to overstate the importance of the U.S. military,
because the military, Congress, and the various U.S. national security agencies all serve interests
outside a sitting administration.
"[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational
corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those companies," he said.
The United States claims to support democracy throughout the world, but, Ellsberg said: "That
is false. That is a cover story."
Instead, he explained that the U.S. supports whatever leaders will support the country's covert
foreign policy. In addition to carrying out assassinations and interfering in those countries' elections,
the U.S. forms "close relationships with their military which we achieve through a combination of
training them promoting the people we like, direct bribery, arms sales, arms grants - giving them
toys in other words - and helping them against dissidents."
If anyone comes to power that opposes U.S. interests, American forces can overthrow them, Ellsberg
argues. Washington's relationships with other nations are not democratic, he says, but imperial,
as much as they were in the time of Sargon, the world's first emperor, who Ellsberg introduced in
Chapter 1 of this series.
As a result, U.S. foreign policy has supported
torturers and war crimes
for over a century.
Key policies the U.S. supports on behalf of Wall Street include "holding down the wages and selling
the local resources at very low value," according to Ellsberg, who added that the governments which
support these policies "could not stay in power in democratic elections, so we are against democracy
in those countries."
Even in places where the U.S. supports democracy, he says, such as Europe, Washington cooperates
with the elite in those countries to discourage candidates that support real change. America's leaders
in the military-industrial complex believe "[w]e run [foreign countries] better than they would run
themselves."
"Can we fix those things while maintaining the military investments ? Even we can't do that,"
he concluded.
Listen to Chapter 2 | Looking beyond Eisenhower's military-industrial complex:
RMDC 2015-12-28 18:04
"[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and
the multinational corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those
companies,"
Yes, of course. It was wall street tycoons and lawyers who created the OSS and CIA They
all had huge investments in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and they wanted to be sure WW II
was fought with their financial interests foremost. These corporate lawyers were used to
overthrowing government around the world for their wall street clients. Donavan, the Dulles
Brothers, Wisner, and the like were world class cutthroats. They moved into the government and
took it over.
Philip Agee, the CIA's highest ranking defector, always said CIA stands for Capitalism'
Invisible Army. This is important. They CIA scours the earth doing the dirty work of Wall
Street. When needed, the Pentagon is called in.
Ellsberg is exactly right. The US is not a democracy. The US regime is the enforcement wing of
multi-national capital. It is a wholly captured government by captialists.
goodsensecynic 2015-12-29 00:07
There's nothing new about the claim that Eisenhower deleted the reference to Congress
just before his far-famed farewell speech. This has been well-known for decades.
What needs to be added, however, is that the elements of ruling class domination are even more
extensive and far more complex.
We should be discussing the
military-industrial-congressional-financial-commercial-ideological-technological complex (with
the possibility of adding more pieces such as the agricultural, chemical, pharmaceutical and,
perhaps, many, many more).
Although the particular connections among them may be shifting and almost kaleidoscopic, basic
patterns of economic, political and social dominance will always emerge.
By "ideological," of course, I mean the combination of the corporate media, the allegedly
"social" media, "official" education, and whatever passes for religion - especially in its
"fundamentalist " aberrations in the Abrahamic cultures.
And, a final caveat: the above merely identify aspects of the "domestic" power structure. It
is also replicated globally with many of the same "players" shifting natural resources,
information technology, capital and currency around in a way that may be permanently beyond
the reach of the governments of even the most powerful semi-sovereign nations.
anarchteacher 2015-12-29 00:55
What Daniel Ellsberg, Dwight Eisenhower, C. Wright Mills, and numerous others have outlined
is what the incomparable Peter Dale Scott now describes as the deep state:
Nowhere do I see reference to John Perkins, the author of "Confessions of an Economic
Hitman." Perkins lays all of this out clearly and concisely, and includes the World Bank and
The WMF, (The World Monetary Fund).
One of their tactics is to loan an emerging nation huge amounts of money which they can
never pay back. In return they will allow Western bank and oil interests, pharmaceuticals ,
bio-tech, copper, etc. whatever natural resources that Western Capitalists want to exploit.
Perkins is sent in to meet with the leaders. He tells them the money is theirs to do whatever
they like. Use it for their country or for themselves.
Some of the leader are actually honorable and refuse the money. Perkins then pulls out the
big warning: Take the money or die by assassination. Some leaders refused. Within six months
the Capitalists sent in what Perkins calls "the jackals". The honorable leader is
assassinated.
There are people even now, doing what he did.
Activista 2015-12-29 12:51
1 trillion + military waste is corrupting/destroying USA. We need to get rid of this
burden.
Vardoz 2015-12-29 14:57
We are being systematically impoverished and destroyed by corporate interests. Elizabeth
Warren and Bernie Sanders are the only senators who do not vote against our better interests
and want to protect the health, safety and welfare of the 99%. As Biden once called it we the
people are being subjected to economic terrorism.
judithehrlich 2015-12-29 17:27
If you'd like to know more about Daniel Ellsberg please see the website for our
Oscar-nominated film, "The Most Dangerous Man in American, Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon
Papers", www.mostdangerousman.org . Edward
Snowden was inspired to act after seeing the film.
"... Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization." ..."
"Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons
arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and
world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from
potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth."
Despite some modestly positive developments in the climate change arena, current efforts are
entirely insufficient to prevent a catastrophic warming of Earth.
Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their
nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at
just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most
important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization."
What appears to have happened here is this: Vladimir Putin has
exploited both the fight against ISIS and Iran's need to preserve the
regional balance of power on the way to enhancing Russia's influence over
Mid-East affairs which in turn helps to ensure that Gazprom's interests
are protected going forward.
Thanks to the
awkward position the US has gotten itself in by covertly allying itself
with various Sunni extremist groups, Washington is for all intents and
purposes powerless to stop Putin lest the public should suddenly get wise
to the fact that combating Russia's resurgence and preventing Iran from
expanding its interests are more important than fighting terror.
In short, Washington gambled on a dangerous game of geopolitical chess, lost, and now faces
two rather terrifyingly disastrous outcomes: 1) China establishing a presence in the Mid-East in
concert with Russia and Iran, and 2) seeing Iraq effectively ceded to the Quds Force and
ultimately, to the Russian army.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
A
scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a
nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.
While we would be the first
to admit that Jeffrey Sachs was the godfather of "shock therapy" (aka "the economic rape of Russia"
and several other xUSSR republics), he is right as for the ongoing Syria bloodbath which has come to
define the geopolitical situation for the past 3 years. And how this is an event that would "surely
rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment" if the truth were fully known, we
agree 100 percent. 